This article was developed from a broader thesis on occupational health and safety environment and employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County, Kenya. It focuses specifically on the relationship between the physical workplace environment and employee performance. For this reason, the analysis used bivariate correlation and simple linear regression, rather than a full multivariable model with controls for role, facility type, workload, or staffing level. The study adopted a mixed-methods cross-sectional design with both descriptive and explanatory elements. A pragmatist approach guided the design, allowing the study to combine statistical evidence with staff experiences of mortuary working conditions. The quantitative data tested the association between physical workplace environment and employee performance, while the qualitative responses explained how staff experienced space, ventilation, equipment, and other physical conditions in their daily work.

The study was conducted in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County. The target population comprised staff directly involved in mortuary operations and related support roles, including managers, pathologists, public health officers, administrators, records officers, receptionists, morticians, hearse crew, and drivers. Because the study population was small and specialised, a census approach was used. The valid respondent profile was dominated by morticians, who constituted 36 of the 42 valid responses, while managers and administrators each accounted for two responses, and records officers and hearse crew each accounted for one response. The accessible fieldwork frame comprised public and faith-based hospital mortuaries, with 35 staff in public hospital mortuaries and 21 staff in faith-based hospital mortuaries. The anonymized dataset used for article analysis did not retain a facility identifier for each respondent; therefore, facility distribution is reported using the accessible sampling frame rather than respondent-level counts per mortuary. This limitation is acknowledged when interpreting possible within-facility dependence. As shown in Table 1, the respondent profile and accessible facility distribution provide the basis for interpreting the sample composition.

Table 1.Respondent profile and accessible facility distribution.

Source: Study data and accessible fieldwork frame, 2026. Note: respondent roles are based on the 42 valid questionnaires; facility distribution is based on the accessible sampling frame because respondent-level facility identifiers were not retained in the anonymized article dataset.

Data were collected using a self-administered semi-structured questionnaire. The quantitative component consisted of closed-ended Likert-scale items used to measure the study constructs numerically. The final instrument used a seven-point response scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Both physical workplace environment and employee performance were self-rated by the same respondents at the same point in time. This provided coherent respondent-level data for testing Objective One, but it also introduced the possibility of common-method and social-desirability bias. The qualitative component consisted of open-ended items that allowed respondents to explain physical workplace challenges, operational constraints, and possible areas for improvement. All 42 valid cases contained responses to the physical-workplace-environment open-ended item and were therefore included in the qualitative strand. This design made it possible to establish not only whether physical workplace environment influenced employee performance, but also how that influence was experienced in daily mortuary work.

This article focuses on two constructs: physical workplace environment and employee performance. Physical workplace environment was operationalised through workspace and layout, ventilation, furniture and equipment, and working surfaces. In the final instrument, the scale comprised seven items covering layout safety, adequacy of space, ventilation, availability of personal protective equipment, availability of tools, lifting support, and safety of working surfaces. Employee performance was measured through effectiveness, efficiency, and service delivery. SERVQUAL informed the service-delivery aspect of this operationalization by directing attention to reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and dignity in mortuary service processes. In the questionnaire, the construct was captured through nine items covering work accuracy, adherence to legal and procedural requirements, timeliness, dignified handling of remains, teamwork, error reduction, and improvement through feedback. Higher scores reflected more favourable workplace conditions or stronger employee performance.

The questionnaire was pilot tested before the main survey at Murang’a Level 5 Hospital Mortuary. Ten questionnaires were used in the pilot. The pilot was intended to identify ambiguity, improve clarity, test practicality, and strengthen internal consistency before the main fieldwork. Pilot respondents were excluded from the final study.

Validity was addressed in two ways. First, content validity was established through expert review by the academic supervisors to ensure that the instrument reflected the study objectives, constructs, and analytical focus. Second, construct validity was assessed empirically using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. KMO values of about 0.60 or above were treated as acceptable, while a statistically significant Bartlett’s test indicated sufficient shared variance among the items. On that basis, the physical workplace environment scale showed good construct adequacy (KMO = 0.777), and the employee performance scale also met the acceptable threshold (KMO = 0.612). Both Bartlett’s tests were statistically significant. These results supported retention of both scales for analysis.

Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and corrected item-total correlations. In line with the study methodology, alpha values of 0.70 or above were treated as acceptable, values from 0.60 to 0.69 as marginal, and values below 0.60 as weak. Corrected item-total correlations of about 0.30 or above were treated as evidence that items moved in the same direction as the scale as a whole. In the final dataset, physical workplace environment recorded Cronbach’s alpha of 0.790, while employee performance recorded 0.764. Both scales were therefore considered sufficiently reliable for inferential analysis.

Formal data collection began after the researcher obtained an introductory letter from Kenyatta University, obtained approval through the Kenyatta University Centre for Research Ethics and Safety, secured the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation research license No. NACOSTI/P/25/4183085, and obtained permission from participating hospitals. Eligible respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and gave informed consent before completing the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, confidentiality was assured, and only validly completed responses were retained for analysis.

The final dataset contained 42 valid cases. Screening confirmed that there were no duplicate cases, no out-of-range responses in the quantitative items, and no missing values that materially affected the closed-ended analysis. The analysis used construct-level composite scores. Although the methodology chapter proposed harmonic means for occupational health and safety constructs, the final thesis tables reported composite values in arithmetic mean form, and the inferential analysis was conducted on the cleaned composite dataset used for final model estimation. For this article, physical workplace environment and employee performance were therefore treated as continuous composite scores derived from their respective questionnaire items.

The qualitative data were analysed thematically. All 42 open-ended responses on physical workplace conditions were read closely. The researcher conducted initial open coding by identifying repeated references to space, ventilation, equipment, lifting support, refrigeration, maintenance, safety, and workflow. Similar codes were then grouped into recurring categories and condensed into themes relevant to the physical workplace environment. The final themes were reviewed against the original responses and the quantitative descriptive results to ensure that the interpretation remained grounded in the data. The main themes included weak lifting and transfer support, equipment shortages, unreliable refrigeration, constrained workspace, ventilation concerns, and maintenance problems. The qualitative strand did not replace statistical testing. It was used to deepen interpretation by showing how physical conditions shaped safety, workflow, comfort, and service delivery in mortuary operations.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise ratings on physical workplace environment and employee performance. Means were used to indicate central tendency, while standard deviations showed dispersion around the mean. This stage established the general condition of the physical workplace environment before inferential testing.

Before inferential analysis, the study assessed whether the data were suitable for ordinary least squares regression. Linearity and model specification were assessed using the Ramsey RESET test, with p > 0.05 taken to indicate no serious specification problem. Residual normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, with p > 0.05 preferred, supported by skewness and kurtosis checks. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factor and tolerance, with VIF < 5.0 and tolerance > 0.20 treated as acceptable. Homoscedasticity was assessed using the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test, with p > 0.05 treated as evidence against serious heteroscedasticity. Independence of errors was assessed using the Durbin-Watson statistic, with a value close to 2.0 treated as acceptable. Outliers and influential observations were assessed using Cook’s distance and studentized residuals, with Cook’s D < 4/n and |studentized residual| < 3 used as reference thresholds. The final diagnostic review indicated that the model was suitable for OLS estimation, with only mild departures that did not invalidate inference.

Pearson correlation analysis was used to test the direction and strength of the association between physical workplace environment and employee performance. Because both constructs were analysed as continuous composite variables, Pearson’s r was appropriate. The decision rule was simple: if the p-value for the correlation coefficient was below 0.05, the relationship was treated as statistically significant. A positive coefficient indicated that better physical workplace conditions were associated with better employee performance.

Objective One was tested using a simple linear regression model in which employee performance was regressed on physical workplace environment:

where EP denotes employee performance, β₀ is the intercept, β₁ is the regression coefficient for physical workplace environment, PWE is the physical workplace environment score, and ε is the error term. In this model, β₁ represents the expected change in employee performance associated with a one-unit change in physical workplace environment. A positive β₁ indicates that improvement in the physical workplace environment predicts improvement in employee performance. The model was deliberately bivariate because this article reports the Objective One pathway from the wider thesis; it was not intended to estimate a fully adjusted causal model. The coefficient was treated as statistically significant if p < 0.05. Model fit was assessed using the F-statistic and R².

The article tested the following null hypothesis:

H₀₁: Physical workplace environment does not significantly influence employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County, Kenya.

The hypothesis was tested first through correlation analysis and then through bivariate regression. The decision criterion was p < 0.05. If the p-value for the correlation coefficient or the regression coefficient for physical workplace environment was below 0.05, H₀₁ was rejected. If the p-value was 0.05 or above, H₀₁ was not rejected. In the wider thesis, the hypothesis for Objective One was rejected, indicating that better physical workplace conditions were associated with stronger employee performance.

Three limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. First, both physical workplace environment and employee performance were measured using the same self-administered questionnaire completed at one point in time; therefore, common-method bias and social-desirability bias cannot be ruled out. Second, the article intentionally used bivariate regression to isolate the Objective One pathway from the wider thesis, and the estimates were not adjusted for role, facility type, workload, staffing level, or other organizational factors. Third, staff working in the same mortuary may share similar physical conditions, meaning that within-facility dependence may exist. The anonymized dataset used for this article did not retain respondent-level facility identifiers, so clustering by mortuary could not be modelled. These limitations mean that the findings should be interpreted as evidence of a statistically significant association and predictive pathway rather than as a fully controlled causal estimate.

The descriptive results for physical workplace environment and employee performance using 42 valid responses are presented in Table 2. Both constructs were rated as favorable overall. Overall physical workplace environment reported a composite mean of 5.56 (SD = 1.67), whereas for employee performance, a higher and more consistent composite mean of 6.55 (SD = 0.85) was also obtained. This suggests that the physical environment of the workplace was generally favourable for respondents but was reported by them as weaker and less uniformly compared to performance by employees. In the construct of the physical workplace environment, most significant was the presence of personal protective equipment, with the highest mean. Safe work layout and movement, suitable working space and ventilation were also positively rated. Nevertheless, lifting support and transfer support achieved the lower average and most variation, which implies that this was the weakest and least consistent element of the physical work environment in each of the mortuaries. Tool availability and working surface condition were rated positively, but not strongly. The descriptive pattern therefore suggests that the physical environment was supportive overall but uneven in some core operational areas. Respondents also rated the physical workplace environment positively (mean = 5.56 with a standard deviation of 1.67 on 7-point scale). However, as this mean is above the midpoint, it means that overall, this reflects a favourable view of the physical conditions of mortuary work. The standard deviation therefore suggests that these conditions are not experienced consistently across facilities. At item level, adequate personal protective equipment had the highest mean (M = 6.19, SD = 1.31), indicating that PPE was the most durable element of the physical work environment. In layout, the workplace was very well rated as well (M = 5.76, SD = 1.43), indicating that respondents viewed the layout of mortuary as a support to safe and efficient movement. Sufficient workspace (M = 5.60; SD = 1.58), ventilation (M = 5.50; SD = 1.67), tools and instrument availability (M = 5.43; SD = 1.61), and the working surfaces (M = 5.40; SD = 1.74) were also rated above the middle point, again indicating a fairly positive (if not pristine) work environment. The item reporting the least favourably was the availability of lifting and transfer equipment (M = 5.02, SD = 2.09). Besides having the lowest mean, this was also the item that demonstrated the highest variation in which the manual handling support was distributed, leading to the conclusion that the equipment’s availability was not equivalent in all mortuaries sampled. At the same time, although the physical work environment tended to support work overall, major weaknesses persist in those aspects closely tied directly and operationally to safety, fatigue reduction, or workflow efficiency. Employee performance items were more closely grouped. The strongest-rated areas were dignity in handling the deceased, adherence to identification procedures, legal compliance, and teamwork. Tendencies to rate timeliness, processing accuracy, and error reduction highly were also highly rated. The lower mean for improvement using client feedback suggests a weaker feedback loop with regard to the other performance items; however, the overall rating was still rated positively. Overall, the descriptive results suggest that staff indicated good performance despite a number of some physical workplace conditions being far from ideal. Employee performance was rated more strongly and more consistently than the physical workplace environment. The dependent variable reported an aggregate mean score of 6.55 and standard deviation of 0.85, reflecting a relatively high overall score of performance with modest variability between respondents. The most prominent among those were the following: respecting the deceased with dignity (M = 6.81, SD = 0.40), respect for identification (M = 6.79, SD = 0.42), cooperation (M = 6.76, SD = 0.69), and law compliance (M = 6.74, SD = 0.50). All this clearly reveals a high level of ethical practice, procedural adherence, and teamwork. The other measures received positive evaluations too for service delivery on time (M = 6.52, SD = 0.74), minimisation of errors by checking (M = 6.52, SD = 0.86), processing accuracy (M = 6.43, SD = 0.83) and minimisation of client time delays (M = 6.33, SD = 0.95). One of the lowest ratings on the performance item was the implementation of client feedback for improvement (M = 6.07, SD = 1.47), which further indicates that improvement through feedback is weaker than more procedural aspects of work. At the descriptive level, there are, generally speaking, two associated patterns. Two: Employee performance was reported as relatively high in all sites. Secondly, while the overall workplace environment was consistently good, a more discontinuous, uneven pattern manifested particularly in terms of infrastructure and handling support. This trend suggests that mortuary staff were maintaining good performance despite a number of limitations in particular areas of the physical work environment. This interpretation is also elaborated upon in the qualitative and inferential analyses. The strongest physical dimension was PPE provision, while the weakest was lifting and transfer equipment. Item-level descriptive statistics are given in Table 2; and the overall comparison between independent and dependent variables is presented in Figure 1.

Table 2.Descriptive statistics for physical workplace environment (PWE) and employee performance (EP).

Source: Study data, 2026.

The aggregate mean scores show that employee performance was rated higher and more consistently than the physical workplace environment. Physical workplace environment remained positive overall, but the gap between the two constructs suggests that strong performance was being maintained under less evenly supportive physical conditions.

Figure 1. Aggregate mean scores for physical workplace environment and employee performance.

Results based upon the open-ended responses on the physical workplace conditions are given in Table 3. The survey had found that, overall, there were certain issues under which physical workplace environment influenced employees’ performance. Among the major themes were equipment and tools, ventilation, space and layout, personal protective equipment and safety conditions, maintenance and infrastructure, lifting and transfer support and refrigeration capacity. Themes reveal that, for respondents, the physical workplace environment was not an abstract condition but a lived environment that facilitated safe and effective mortuary provision, which was perceived by them either as the physical setting or limitation to safe and efficient workplace work. The most evident qualitative issue was the supply of tools, equipment and operational support. Respondents connected insufficient tools to delays, inefficiency, and physical strain. Ventilation also emerged as a prominent aspect, particularly as related to comfort and adaptability of the workspace. Movement and task flow and coordination were frequently referred to as impacted by space and layout. In contrast, lifting support and refrigeration were mentioned less frequently but when necessary they were identified as essential for safe body handling and continuity of service. The qualitative results indicated that employees performed well in work-oriented activities and that the physical environment of the workplace directly influenced employees’ work. Respondents associated physical environment with workflow, safety, comfort, and service quality. Although some considered the mortuary environment feasible and supportive some reported tangible limitations such as absence of tools, poor lifting assistance, minimal refrigeration capacity, inadequate space, limited air circulation, and variable availability of protective equipment. These accounts suggest that, beyond being a good safety environment, the quality of physical conditions were critical to the ability to carry out ordinary tasks. Refrigeration and freezer area were also very visible figures from the accounts. Respondents deemed these facilities essential for preservation, continuity of workflow, and orderly processing of cases. Inadequate or unreliable cold storage had therefore been referred to as a direct bottleneck to the effective delivery of services. Other factors were space, layout, and ventilation. Space and a good physical layout were linked to safer movement, better organisational layout and better task co-ordination. By comparison they found tight, inadequate ventilation and cramped rooms to be associated with discomfort and strain. Lifting and transferring support was one of the most prominent concerns. Respondents repeatedly mentioned insufficient manual handling equipment, fatigue, slow flow of work and difficulty with difficult tasks. There was a dual response to the quality of PPE and overall safety: while some staff were happy that they received protective gear in the environment, others indicated inadequate equipment made their exposure in regular work more likely. Respondents also acknowledged late repairs, unfinished replacement of run-down equipment and inadequate infrastructure improvements. These accounts suggest that performance constraints are not caused by resource shortages only, but also by weak maintenance systems and slow operational support. Ultimately, the more qualitative evidence revealed that physical work environment that allowed safe, orderly and efficient work practices led to better employee performance, as opposed to employees forced to work around shortages, poor infrastructure and demanding physical conditions with little in the way of staff support. One significant observation in the qualitative responses was that staff did not attribute physical working conditions to performance. Rather, they connected them directly with workflow, dignity of service, staff fatigue and reliability of operations. It strengthens the notion that physical working environment in mortuary context is the performance system itself.

Table 3.Qualitative theme matrix for physical workplace environment.

The combined quantitative and qualitative findings, as shown in Table 4, demonstrates strong convergence. Quantitatively, the physical workplace environment was rated positively overall, but with wider variation than employee performance. Qualitatively, respondents identified specific weaknesses in equipment, lifting support, infrastructure, ventilation, and refrigeration. So the two strands told exactly the same story: mortuary staff were performing strongly, but the physical conditions supporting that performance were uneven. The common areas of greatest convergence were lifting and handling support. Quantitatively, this was the lowest-rated physical item. Qualitatively, it was viewed as a direct cause of fatigue and operational difficulty. PPE also showed convergence but in a more mixed form. It was the strongest-rated quantitative item, but qualitative responses indicated that

Table 4.Joint display integrating physical workplace environment (PWE) and employee performance (EP) findings.

provision was not equally reliable in all facilities. The overall pattern of layout, space, ventilation, tools, and surfaces followed a similar general pattern: they were viewed positively overall, but their practical adequacy varied across mortuaries.

The combined results demonstrate a good fit between qualitative and quantitative evidence on the contribution of the physical workplace environment to employee performance. Quantitatively, employee performance was rated higher and more consistently than the physical workplace environment. Qualitatively, employees described performance as being shaped by their work environment, including access to equipment, adequacy of space, ventilation, manual handling support, and the condition of infrastructure. In sum, the evidence indicates employee performance remained strong—even though the physical support that underpinned that performance was not universally reliable across facilities. The integrated pattern holds particularly true for PPE, layout, and space, on which both strands of evidence were broadly positive. At the same time, the two datasets aligned in identifying lifting and transfer support, ventilation, tools, and infrastructure as more uneven areas. The qualitative narratives serve to illuminate descriptive statistics by illustrating how these physical conditions influenced movement, comfort, safety, fatigue, and the execution of routine tasks. The integrated evidence suggests that the physical workplace environment created an essential operational context for performance in hospital mortuaries. Supportive environments facilitated smoother workflow and safer execution of duties, while weaknesses in equipment, infrastructure, and workspace arrangements were practical obstacles to efficient performance.

The integrated findings indicate that the physical workplace environment was not only associated with employee performance at a general level. It influenced the practical conditions under which performance was achieved. Staff maintained high performance, although the qualitative evidence indicated this was often the case despite, rather than because of, consistently supportive physical work conditions.

Before inferential analysis, diagnostic tests were conducted to assess whether the data were suitable for regression modelling. The wider employee performance model met the main conditions for linear regression with acceptable caution. Linearity and general model specification were supported by the RESET result. Residual normality was broadly acceptable under the Shapiro-Wilk test, although mild tail heaviness was noted. Multicollinearity was not a concern, and the homoscedasticity results did not indicate a strong violation. Taken together, the model was retained as usable for OLS estimation.

Before the inferential analysis, diagnostic tests were conducted to determine whether the data met the basic requirements for regression modelling. Figures 2-5 present the graphical evidence on residual normality, residual spread, influential cases, and linearity, while Table 5(a) and Table 5(b) summarize the corresponding numerical diagnostic results.

Table 5.(a) Preliminary diagnostic test summary; (b) Influence diagnostics summary.

For the physical workplace environment pathway specifically, the Q-Q plot shown in Figure 2 suggested that residuals followed the normal line reasonably well, with only modest tail departures. The model was therefore treated as adequate for inferential testing. The broader diagnostic conclusion was that the linear model remained usable, with no serious multicollinearity concern, no strong evidence of model misspecification, and no strong evidence of a major homoscedasticity problem.

The Q-Q plot shows that the residuals followed the normal reference line reasonably well, with only modest departures at the tails. This supports the decision to retain the linear model for inferential analysis.

Figure 2. Normal Q-Q plot of regression residuals.

The residual pattern shows no severe systematic distortion. Although mild curvature is visible, the spread remains broadly acceptable for OLS interpretation.

Figure 3. Residuals versus fitted values.

The influence diagnostics show that a small number of observations merit review, but none was sufficiently extreme to justify automatic exclusion from the analysis.

Figure 4. Influence diagnostics.

The fitted and smoothed lines indicate an overall positive association between predictor scores and employee performance. The pattern supports use of a linear specification with ordinary caution.

Figure 5. Linearity check of predictor scores versus employee performance.

An inferential analysis was performed to assess whether the physical workplace environment was significantly associated with the employees’ performance of public- and faith-based hospital mortuaries personnel in Kiambu County, Kenya. Composite scores were calculated from the 7 physical workplace environment and 9 employee performance items. First, Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation coefficient was used to examine how the bivariate relationship was oriented, their size, and statistical significance. Then, simple linear regression was made using the Ordinary Least Squares methodology to assess whether the physical workplace environment has predictive power on employees’ performance. So, an inferential analysis was used to conduct a test whether physical workplace environment positively or negatively affected employee performance. The direction and strength of the relationship were assessed by a bivariate correlation. Secondly, a simple regression model estimated the direct influence of physical workplace environment on employee performance. The hypothesis tested here is that physical workplace environment does not impact employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County, Kenya.

3.5.1. Correlation Analysis

The bivariate correlation between physical workplace environment and employee performance is shown in Table 6. Analysis indicated that the study demonstrated a positive and significant interaction between the two variables (r = 0.389, p = 0.011). That means mortuaries who reported better physical workplace conditions also often reported higher employee performance. The relationship was small but statistically significant. In real terms, findings also indicate that better layout, ventilation, equipment and handling support are correlated with the service quality, effectiveness and efficiency. Objective One aimed to determine the correlation with physical workplace environment and organizational employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County. The correlation results indicate that the two variables had a positive and significant relationship (r = 0.389, p = 0.011, n = 42). This shows that the degree of physical organizational environment ratings was positively associated with employee performance. And while this relationship is modest, the cause is apparent and meaningful. In pragmatic terms, the results indicate that employees in mortuaries with safer design, improved area, increased ventilation, appropriate PPE, dependable tools, lifting and transfer assistance and improved working surfaces were more likely to report better performing in accuracy, timeliness, teamwork, legal compliance and respectful use of the deceased. We note that the outcome indicated that the physical environment in which the workers work was not a mere background detail. And in a study setting, it did have a measurable correlation with employees’ performance. The Pearson correlation in Table 6 shows there is a relationship between the physical environment of the mortuary and staff performance that is significant but moderate in magnitude. Suggestion would be that measures geared to improve physical work environment should improve on employees as well and improve mortuary service quality overall.

Table 6.Correlation between physical workplace environment (PWE) and employee performance (EP).

3.5.2. Regression Analysis

A simple linear regression model was derived to assess if physical workplace environment significantly predicted employee performance, dependent on employee performance and predictor by physical workplace environment. It indicated that physical workplace environment had a positive, statistically significant effect on employee performance (B = 0.172, β = 0.389, SE = 0.064, t = 2.670, p = 0.011). This implies that a one-unit increase in the physical workplace environment score led to a 0.172-unit increase in employee performance. The objective one also wanted to establish how well the physical workplace environment was a predictor of employees´ performance. Hence simple linear regression analysis with 42 valid items was carried out and was estimated through the Ordinary Least Squares. The model summary shows that R = 0.389 and R² = 0.151, which indicates that the physical workplace environment accounted for 15.1% of the employee performance variation. While this doesn’t account for all of the differences, it is more than adequate in that it demonstrates that physical working condition plays an important role in the performance context (both in mortuary settings). This adjusted R² of 0.130 further showed that the model kept its explanatory power when the sample size and model simplicity are taken into account. Based on ANOVA results, we find that the regression model was statistically significant, F(1, 40) = 7.127, p = 0.011. Hence, the regression equation gave a better fit to the data than a model with no predictor which verifies that the physical environment in the workplace had a significant contribution of predicting employee performance. Coefficients results confirm the significance of the physical workplace environment in predicting employee performance. The results in a one-unit increase in the physical workplace environment score led to a 0.172-unit increase in employee performance, specifically, performance increased by 0.172-units in those of the physical workplace environment score (B = 0.172, SE = 0.064, t = 2.670, and p = 0.011). The standardised coefficient (Beta = 0.389) further suggests a moderate, but statistically significant positive effect of moderate magnitude. These findings indicate that the physical workplace environment provided a statistically significant positive relation with employees’ performance. A positive coefficient indicates that better physical conditions were related to better performance outcomes. Practically, this leads to the conclusion that better layout and space and ventilation and equipment and lifting supports and work surfaces should mean mortuary staff can do their tasks better. The regression equation was:

EP = 5.597 + 0.172 (PWE). where EP indicates employee performance, 5.597 is the intercept, and 0.172 is the slope towards the physical workplace environment. The model accounted for 15.1% of variance in employee performance (R² = 0.151), and the size of the overall model was significant (F = 7.127, p = 0.011). It means that physical work environment was not just closely related to employee performance, but also had a significant predictive ability. The basic linear regression model was performed to perform the regression analysis:

Y = β₀ + β₁X + ε. where: Y = Employee performance; X = Physical workplace environment; β₀ = Intercept; β₁ = Slope coefficient; ε = Error term. Then from the output of the regression, the whole estimated regression equation was:

Y ^ = 5.597 + 0.172X. where: Y ^ = Predicted employee performance; 5.597 = Constant intercept; 0.172 = Regression coefficient for physical workplace environment; X = Physical workplace environment score. Put simply, the estimated regression equation might be written as:

Employee Performance = 5.597 + 0.172 (Physical Workplace Environment). We have thus that by keeping other factors equal in the simple model, a one-unit increase in the physical workplace environment score was associated with a 0.172-unit increase in staff members’ performance. The full model summary, ANOVA, and coefficient estimates are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.Regression results for physical workplace environment (PWE) predicting employee performance (EP).

3.5.3. Decision to Test the Hypothesis

The null hypothesis was that physical workplace environment has no significant effect on employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County, Kenya. The null hypothesis was rejected due to a positive and statistically significant regression coefficient for physical workplace environment (p = 0.011). This result illustrates that physical workplace environment significantly influenced employee performance across the mortuaries that were sampled here. This implies further strengthening of their physical conditions of work will undoubtedly elevate operational efficiency, service quality, and the dignity of mortuary services. Objective One hypothesis test was made using the regression results of regression already presented on effect of physical workplace environment on employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County, Kenya. Null hypothesis was explained as follows:

H₀₁: The physical workplace environment does not significantly influence employee performance in public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County, Kenya.

This hypothesis was decided based on the estimated probability value and the regression coefficient. So based on this result, the null hypothesis (H₀₁) was rejected. This confirms that adequate statistical evidence existed to suggest that the physical environment of the workplace significantly influences the performance of employees in the mortuary setting. So, in practical terms, it means that the quality of the physical conditions under which mortuary staff is working does impact employee performance in part. The hypothesis test overall concludes that the physical work environment is not only a background condition for mortuary activities but actually serves as a contributing factor for employee performance. Such findings underline the importance of supporting physical conditions within public and faith-based hospital mortuaries, incorporating appropriate space, the right layout, good ventilation, and adequate equipment that promote work effectiveness. The final decision for H0₁ is summarized in Table 8.

Table 8.Hypothesis decision for H0₁.

Policy implications are clear. Mortuary unit physical conditions should be viewed as a workforce performance issue, not as a facility matter. Employee performance is found to be improved where mortuary spaces are safer, better equipped, easier to navigate, and operationally more reliable. Therefore, attention should be placed on the weakest points of the study, specifically lifting and transfer support, maintenance systems, ventilation consistency, refrigeration reliability, and tool and equipment adequacy. These are not cosmetic questions. They help to decrease physical strain, enhance workflow, and bolster the circumstances necessary for an accurate, timely, and dignified delivery of service. At institutional level, hospital administration, county health departments, and faith-based hospital leadership should lay down clearer minimum standards for mortuary facilities and operational support. These standards shall include the layout of the workspace, ventilation, equipment availability, safe working surfaces, refrigeration functionality, and manual handling support. That also means mortuary operations become embedded as part of routine maintenance planning, and not performed in the event of emergencies and replacement of equipment that’s worn out. No such systems mean staff must maintain performance based on effort and the need to adapt by themselves, which the present results indicate is inefficient and unsustainable. A better physical work space is thus likely to increase staff safety, promote continuity and quality of workflow as well as quality of service.

The study will be of significance to research on occupational health and safety environment and employee performance. First, it strengthens the argument that the physical environment of the workplace be established as a separate and analytically meaningful predictor of employee performance, particularly in specialised health-service environments. Much of the previous research focused on offices, hotels, banks, factories, and general health facilities. The recent results show that mortuary settings should require attention because physical conditions depend so much on workflow, handling systems, refrigeration, safety, and service continuity. It extends the reach of the current literature on the workplace environment to a category of knowledge relatively overlooked by most other areas in society. Second, the study also allows for a wider operationalisation of physical workplace environment than that in previous work. Instead of a range of more specific indicators, such as lighting, noise, or temperature alone, the present work considered the workspace and layout, ventilation, furniture and equipment, and working surfaces. The results imply that these dimensions do provide better evidence for performance analysis in mortuary practice as they represent actual material conditions under which work is carried out. This will be clinically useful in the future, when additional studies are needed to specifically look at occupational health and safety in high-risk and infrastructure-dependent environments. Third, this research demonstrates the importance of integrating descriptive, qualitative, and inferential evidence in workplace studies. The quantitative results indicated that there is a significant relationship between physical workplace environment and employee performance and the qualitative results clarified how the relationship actually worked. This dual design produced a more comprehensive explanation than any single strand could deliver. Such mixed methodological research approaches would be advantageous for mortuary work and similar specialised health settings where we have trouble quantifying the day-to-day conditions of work with numerical measurements alone.

The implications are immediate in reality. Mortuary staff will work better if they are able to carry out day-to-day tasks in a supportive and organised manner within the physical environment. From a practical perspective, this translates to improvements in layout, space, ventilation, equipment, safe working surfaces, and lifting support are all expected to promote good workflow, decrease fatigue, and promote work consistency. Hence, hospitals should approach physical workplace improvement as part of the service-performance management rather than as a separate maintenance problem in isolation. Findings also suggest particular focus areas for practice. It is their duty as managers to make sure lifting and transfer equipment is functional, ventilation and refrigeration systems are working, that essential tools are always available, and that repair and replacement efforts are timely. These were the places where physical support remained the lowest and where problems of operation most likely occurred. They may be addressed to make daily mortuary work safer and more efficient. Further, the findings imply that robust performance in mortuary units should not be reliant on the resilience of staff. Employees were sustaining high performance albeit uneven physical support, the study found. Although this betrays commitment and procedural discipline, it is also a gesture of vulnerability. Performance based on adaptation to adverse environments may not be sustainable. As such, practical improvement necessitates more than just dedicated personnel, but instead work environments that consistently enable the work they’re required to do. In this regard, the article also aligns with mortuary-technology arguments that equipment and handling innovations can reduce manual strain and improve operational control ([16]).

Future research should examine physical workplace environment and employee performance using longitudinal designs in order to capture change over time and provide stronger causal evidence. This would help determine whether improvements in workspace, equipment, ventilation, maintenance, and handling support produce sustained gains in employee performance rather than short-term effects.

Further studies should also incorporate more objective performance and workplace-condition indicators, such as turnaround time, refrigeration downtime, equipment availability records, error rates, absenteeism, incident reports, and service complaints, in order to complement perceptual measures. Such evidence would strengthen the empirical basis for assessing the operational value of physical workplace environment in hospital mortuaries.

In addition, future research could extend the analysis to other healthcare and public-service settings, including private hospitals, county referral facilities, forensic pathology units, and mortuaries in other counties, to determine whether the same physical workplace constraints persist across institutional contexts. Comparative studies across sectors and facility types would help clarify the extent to which the present findings are specific to public and faith-based hospital mortuaries in Kiambu County or reflect broader workplace-performance dynamics in specialised health services.