Need for informed consent for dentists who use mercury amalgam restorative material as well as technical considerations in removal of dental amalgam restorations.

Amalgam restorative material generally contains 50% mercury (Hg) in a complex mixture of copper, tin, silver, and zinc. It has been well documented that this mixture continually emits mercury vapor, which is dramatically increased by chewing, eating, brushing, and drinking hot liquids. Mercury has been demonstrated to have damaging effects on the kidney, central nervous system, and cardiovascular system, and has been implicated in gingival tattoos. While mercury amalgams may result in detrimental exposure to the patient, they can also be a danger in dental practices. In Europe, the federal governments of Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden have enacted legislation requiring that dental patients receive informed consent information about the dental restorative material that will be used. In the United States, a few state governments have enacted informed consent legislation for dental patients receiving dental restorations. These state legislations were enacted by Maine, California, Connecticut, and Vermont. It is a sad tragedy that mercury is causing such health damage to many people. The American Dental Association has said for the past 150 years that the mercury in amalgam is safe and does not leak; however, no clinical studies were ever done and the Food and Drug Administration approved amalgam under a grandfather clause. Subsequent studies have shown this claim of safety not to be true. Over ten years ago, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal published a comprehensive article calling mercury restorative material a major source of mercury exposure to the U.S. population. The authors of this paper recommend that federal and state legislation be passed throughout our country to ensure that consent forms are given to patients receiving silver-mercury amalgam restorative material.

Texas passes first law for safe patient handling in America: landmark legislation protects health-care workers and patients from injury related to manual patient lifting.

On June 17,2005, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) signed into law Senate Bill 1525, making Texas the first state in the nation to require hospitals and nursing homes to implement safe patient handling and movement programs. Governor Perry is to be commended for this heroic first stand for safe patient handling in America. The landmark legislation will take effect January 1, 2006, requiring the establishment of policy to identify, assess, and develop methods of controlling the risk of injury to patients and nurses associated with lifting, transferring, repositioning, and movement of patients; evaluation of alternative methods from manual lifting to reduce the risk of injury from patient lifting, including equipment and patient care environment; restricting, to the extent feasible with existing equipment, manual handling of all or most of a patient's weight to emergency, life-threatening, or exceptional circumstances; and provision for refusal to perform patient handling tasks believed to involve unacceptable risks of injury to a patient or nurse. Manually lifting patients has been called deplorable, inefficient, dangerous to nurses, and painful and brutal to patients; manual lifting can cause needless suffering and injury to patients, with dangers including pain, bruising, skin tears, abrasions, tube dislodgement, dislocations, fractures, and being dropped by nursing staff during attempts to manually lift. Use of safe, secure, mechanical lift equipment and gentle friction-reducing devices for patient maneuvering tasks could eliminate such needless brutality. Research has proven that manual patient lifting is extremely hazardous to health-care workers, creating substantial risk of low-back injury, whether with one or two patient handlers. Studies on the use of mechanical patient lift equipment, by either nursing staff or lift teams, have proven repeatedly that most nursing staff back injury is preventable, leading to substantial savings to employers on medical and compensation costs. Because the health-care industry has relied on people to do the work of machines, nursing work remains the most dangerous occupation for disabling back injury. Back injury from patient lifting may be the single largest contributor to the nursing shortage, with perhaps 12% of nurses leaving or being terminated because of back injury. The US health-care industry has not kept pace with other industries, which provide mechanical lift equipment for lifting loads equivalent to the weight of patients, or with other countries, such as Australia and England, which are more advanced in their use of modern technology for patient lifting and with no-lifting practices in compliance with government regulations and nursing policies banning manual lifting. With Texas being the first state to succeed in passing legislation for safe patient handling, other states are working toward legislative protection against injury with manual patient lifting. California re-introduced safe patient handling legislation on February 17, 2005, with CA SB 363, Hospitals: Lift Teams, following the September 22, 2004, veto of CA AB 2532 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said he believes existing statutory protection and workplace safety standards are sufficient to protect health care workers from injury. Massachusetts HB 2662, Relating to Safe Patient Handling in Certain Health Facilities, was introduced December 1, 2004. Ohio HB 67, signed March 21, 2005 by Governor Bob Taft (R), creates a program for interest-free loans to nursing homes for implementation of a no-manual-lift program. New York companion bills AB 7641 and SB 4029 were introduced in April, 2005, calling for creation of a 2-year study to establish safe patient handling programs and collect data on nursing staff and patient injury with manual patient handling versus lift equipment, to determine best practices for improving health and safety of health-care workers and patients during patient handling. Washington State is planning re-introduction of safe patient handling legislation, after WA HB 1672, Relating to reducing injuries among patients and health care workers, was stalled in committee in February, 2005. Language from these state initiatives may be used as models to assist other states with drafting safe patient handling legislation. Rapid enactment of a federal mandate for Safe Patient Handling No Manual Lift is essential and anticipated.

Devastating injuries in healthcare workers: description of the crisis and legislative solution to the epidemic of back injury from patient lifting.

The purpose of this report is to describe a crisis in healthcare, disabling back injuries in US healthcare workers. In addition, outlined is the proven solution of safe, mechanized, patient lifting, which has been shown to prevent these injuries. A "Safe Patient Handling--No Manual Lift" policy must be immediately instituted throughout this country. Such a policy is essential to halt hazardous manual patient lifting, which promotes needless disability and loss of healthcare workers, pain and risk of severe injury to patients, and tremendous waste of financial resources to employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers. Healthcare workers consistently rank among top occupations with disabling back injuries, primarily from manually lifting patients. Back injury may be the single largest contributor to the nursing shortage. Reported injuries to certified nursing assistants are three to four times that of registered nurses. A national healthcare policy for "Safe Patient Handling--No Manual Lift" is urgently needed to address this crisis. Body mechanics training is ineffective in prevention of back injury with patient lifting. Mandated use of mechanical patient lift equipment has proven to prevent most back injury to nursing personnel and reduce pain and injury to patients associated with manual lifting. With the national epidemic of morbid obesity in our country, innovative devices are available for use in emergency medical systems and hospitals for patient lifting and transfer without injury to hospital personnel. The US healthcare industry has not voluntarily taken measures necessary to reduce patient handling injury by use of mechanical lift devices. US healthcare workers who suffer disabling work-related back injuries are limited to the fixed, and often inadequate, relief which they may obtain from workers' compensation. Under workers' compensation law, healthcare workers injured lifting patients may not sue their employer for not providing mechanical lift equipment. Discarding healthcare workers disabled by preventable back injuries is an abuse which legislators must remedy. In addition, Medicare reimbursement policies must also be updated to allow the disabled community to purchase electrically operated overhead ceiling lifts. The US lags far behind countries with legislated manual handling regulations and "No Lifting" nursing policies. England and Australia have had "No Lifting" nursing policies in place since 1996 and 1998, respectively. The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) recognized a model in 2003 for reduction of back injuries to nursing staff in US healthcare facilities. Also in 2003, the American Nurses Association called for elimination of manual patient handling because it is unsafe and causes musculoskeletal injuries to nurses. The first state legislation for safe patient handling passed both houses in California but was vetoed by the Governor in September 2004. California and other states are preparing to (re)introduce legislation in January 2005. A national, industry-specific policy is essential to quell the outflow of nursing personnel to disability from manual patient lifting.

Prevention of disabling back injuries in nurses by the use of mechanical patient lift systems.

Occupational back pain in nurses (OBPN) constitutes a major source of morbidity in the health care environment. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), occupational back injury is the second leading occupational injury in the United States. Among health care personnel, nurses have the highest rate of back pain, with an annual prevalence of 40-50% and a lifetime prevalence of 35-80%. The American Nursing Association believes that manual patient handling is unsafe and is directly responsible for musculoskeletal disorders encountered in nurses. It has been well documented that patient handling can be done safely with the use of assistive equipment and devices that eliminate these hazards to nurses that invite serious back injuries. The benefit of assistive patient handling equipment is characterized by the simultaneous reduction of the risk of musculoskeletal injury to the nursing staff and improvement in the quality of care for patient populations. To understand the cause of disabling injuries in health care workers, several factors must be considered, including the following: (1) anatomy/physiology of the back, (2) risk factors, (3) medical legal implications, and (4) prevention. Among nurses, back, neck, and shoulder injuries are commonly noted as the most prevalent and debilitating. While mostly associated with dependant patient care, the risk for musculoskeletal injury secondary to manual patient handling crosses all specialty areas of nursing. The skeletal defects of an abnormal back make the back more susceptible to occupational injury, even under normal stress conditions. Workers compensation guidelines for occupational back injury differ in public and private health care sectors from state to state. Nursing personnel should be reminded that the development of back pain following occupational activities in the hospital should be reported immediately to the Occupational Health Department. A nurse's failure to report OBPN immediately has resulted in numerous denials of claims for rehabilitation and compensation that nurses deserve. Experts believe that training in proper body mechanics does not prevent back injury. Consequently, focus has been placed on other innovative injury prevention programs, including the use of engineering controls as well as the "lift team" method. Ergonomics involves the use of mechanical devices (e.g., walking belt and mechanical hoist) to aid in patient lifting and transferring tasks. Guldmann Inc. has devised ceiling lift systems and slings during the past 20 years. They have successfully completed thousands of installations worldwide, covering a wide range of challenging conditions and complex environments. The Guldmann ceiling-mounted hoist system consists of a wide range of lifting units, rail components, and a complete assortment of lifting slings and accessories. Its sling is made of polyester, which is characterized by its strength and elasticity. It retains its shape and is dirt repellent and easy to maintain. The Guldmann network has one of the largest and indisputably most experienced group of certified installers in the United States. The "lift team" method was devised to remove nursing personnel from the everyday task of moving patients. This type of intervention assumes that lifting is a specialized skill to be performed only by expert professional patient movers who have been thoroughly trained in the latest lifting device techniques.

The Sit & Stand chair. A revolutionary advance in adaptive seating systems.

A major factor governing independence for the elderly and persons with disabilities is the ability to stand from a chair. Factors such as pain, reduced joint range of motion, stiffness, and muscle weakness frequently limit the ability to stand. Sit-to-stand position is even further reduced in patients whose hands and shoulders are afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis. When achieving a sit-to-stand position in the elderly and persons with disabilities, there is considerable risk of the individual falling and sustaining bone fracture. The purposes of this scientific report are to achieve the following goals: (1) to provide a narrative discussion of the senior author's contributions to furniture manufacturing as well as his successful patent application for the SIT & STAND chair, (2) to describe the steps involved in the development of the SIT & STAND prototype, and (3) to examine the performance of the SIT & STAND chair in assisting the elderly or persons with disabilities in achieving a sit-to-stand position. The invention of the SIT & STAND chair by the senior author, Michael Galumbeck, was a culmination of his lifelong interest in adaptive seating systems. His electrically operated chair has the unique ability to assist the occupant to achieve safely a sit-to-stand position. The rear portion of his chair remains in a fixed position to support the buttocks of the user during mechanical lift. The front portion of the seat folds down incrementally as the chair rises to allow the feet of the user to be positioned in a more posterior position firmly on the floor. Using its actuator, the height that the chair rises will vary with the length of the legs of the occupant. Using the drawing program Solid Works (Solid Works, Concord, Massachusetts), drawings of the chair were made. To visualize the operation and performance of the chair, separate drawings were made in the lateral position. The prototype of the SIT & STAND chair was manufactured with an electric actuator that allows elevation of the back portion of the seat. The design of this chair ensured that there were no pinch points that could endanger the user or assistant. Its framework ensured that it was stable and did not tip over. After the prototype chair is manufactured, it is being sent to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. (Los Angeles, California) for review and certification. The performance of the SIT & STAND chair was determined in a clinical study involving seven elderly or disabled individuals who complained of difficulty in rising from a chair from a seated position. During each performance evaluation, a mechanical chest and shoulder harness attached to an overhead sling encircled the individual to ensure that he/she would not fall. In the first part of the evaluation, these individuals were asked to achieve a standing position after being seated in the SIT & STAND chair without the use of the actuator. Three individuals were unable to achieve a standing position, while four achieved this standing position with considerable difficulty and potential instability. When these participants used the SIT & STAND chair with the use of the electrical actuator, all individuals achieved a standing position without difficulty or instability. All individuals expressed disappointment that the SIT & STAND chair was not commercially available for them to purchase and use in their homes. Because the SIT & STAND chair allows the individual to achieve a standing position without assistance, the SIT & STAND chair has other potential benefits not evaluated in this study. The beneficial effects of standing have been documented by comprehensive scientific studies. These benefits include reduction of seating pressure, decreased bone demineralization, increased bladder pressure, enhanced circulatory regulation, reduction in muscular tone, decrease in upper extremity muscle stress, and participation in activities of daily living. Another irrefutable benefit of the SIT & STAND chair is that the chair eliminates the need for physical assistance from family members or health care personnel, preventing the development of disabling back injuries in personal care assistants. In addition, the SIT & STAND chair entirely removes the risk of pain or harm to the individual, which sometimes occurs with manual assist to stand, such as dislocation or fracture of frail shoulders with the under-axilla lift. Realizing the medical benefits of the SIT & STAND chair, Aetna completed a clinical policy bulletin that states that the seat lift mechanism is a medically necessary durable medical product. On the basis of this extensive product and performance evaluation, we recommend the SIT & STAND chair for the elderly as well as persons with disability to safely achieve a sit-to-stand position.