Barriers and facilitators to implementing self-directed therapy activities in inpatient rehabilitation settings.

BACKGROUND: Self-directed therapy activities are not currently part of routine care during inpatient rehabilitation. Understanding patient and clinician perspectives on self-directed therapy is key to increasing implementation. The aim of this study was to investigate barriers and facilitators to implementing a self-directed therapy programme ("My Therapy") in adult inpatient rehabilitation settings. METHODS: My Therapy was recommended by physiotherapists and occupational therapists and completed by rehabilitation inpatients independently, outside of supervised therapy sessions. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and patients were invited to complete an online questionnaire comprising open-ended questions on barriers and facilitators to prescribing and participating in My Therapy. A directed content analysis of free-text responses was undertaken, with data coded using categories of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model). RESULTS: Eleven patients and 20 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Patient capability was reported to be facilitated by comprehensive education by clinicians, with mixed attitudes towards the format of the programme booklet. Clinician capability was facilitated by staff collaboration. One benefit was the better use of downtime between the supervised therapy sessions, but opportunities for patients to engage in self-directed therapy were compromised by the lack of space to complete the programme. Clinician opportunity was reported to be provided via organisational support but workload was a reported barrier. Patient motivation to engage in self-directed therapy was reported to be fostered by feeling empowered, engaged, and encouraged to participate. Clinician motivation was associated with belief in the value of the programme. CONCLUSION: Despite some barriers to rehabilitation patients independently practicing therapeutic exercises and activities outside of supervised sessions, both clinicians and patients agreed it should be considered as routine practice. To do this, patient time, ward space, and staff collaboration are required. Further research is needed to scale-up the implementation of the My Therapy programme and evaluate its effectiveness.

Feasibility of increasing the dosage of inpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation via independent tasks and exercises: 'My Therapy'.

INTRODUCTION: The dosage of occupational therapy and physiotherapy positively correlates with rehabilitation patient and health service outcomes. Nevertheless, increasing the dosage during inpatient rehabilitation without additional resources can be challenging. This study aimed to determine feasibility of increasing the dosage of inpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation with independent tasks and exercises outside of supervised sessions, the 'My Therapy' programme. METHODS: A two-group, quasi-experimental, pre-post-design examined feasibility of delivering My Therapy in addition to usual care, compared to usual care alone, for hospitalised musculoskeletal and frail older rehabilitation patients. My Therapy was prescribed by the occupational therapist and physiotherapist. A booklet was provided with an individually tailored set of tasks and exercises that were a sub-set of routine therapy, to be practised safely, effectively and independently outside of supervised sessions. The primary outcome was feasibility of My Therapy implementation to achieve at least 70% adherence. Secondary outcomes were self-reported daily My Therapy participation (minutes), total daily rehabilitation participation (minutes), adverse events, length of stay, 10-metre walk speed, FIM scores and discharge destination. RESULTS: Participation in My Therapy was achieved by 72% (83/116) of the My Therapy group, who averaged 14 min (SD 14) of daily practice outside of supervised sessions. Total daily rehabilitation participation was 177 min (SD 47) for My Therapy participants (n = 116) and 148 min (SD 88) for usual care participants (n = 89); mean difference 30 min (p = .00). A minimal clinically important difference in FIM was achieved for a significantly higher portion of the My Therapy group (22%, n = 26) compared to usual care (10%, n = 9; p = .02). There were no adverse events, safety concerns or group differences for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: My Therapy was a feasible and safe way to increase the dosage of inpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation via independent practice. Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000691448.

Patient handling training interventions and musculoskeletal injuries in healthcare workers: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Workplace injuries are a serious issue for the health and social care industry, with the sector accounting for 20 % of all serious claims reported. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether patient handling training interventions that included instruction on patient transfer techniques are effective in preventing musculoskeletal injuries in healthcare workers. Methods: Electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Health and Safety Science Abstracts (ProQuest) were searched for controlled trials from January 1996-August 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale and overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for each meta-analysis. Results: A total of nine studies (3903 participants) were included. There is moderate certainty evidence that could not conclude whether patient handling training affects the 12-month incidence of lower back pain (OR = 0.83, 95 % CI [0.59, 1.16]). There is low certainty evidence that patient handing training does not prevent lower back pain in health professionals without pre-existing pain (MD = -0.06, 95 % CI [-0.63, 0.52]) but may reduce lower back pain in those with pre-existing pain (MD = -2.92, 95 % CI [-5.44, -0.41]). The results also suggest that there may be a positive effect of training incorporating risk assessment on musculoskeletal injury rates; however the evidence is of very low certainty. There is low certainty evidence from a single study that training may have a short-term effect on sickness absences.) Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence to support patient handling training when delivered to all healthcare staff. Training in its current form may be an ineffective strategy for reducing musculoskeletal injuries and pain. High quality disinvestment studies or trials incorporating risk assessment strategies are warranted. Practical Applications: This review suggests health service managers question the effectiveness of current patient handling training practices and consider evaluating current practices before allocating resources to meet employee risk reduction obligations.

Nurses sustain manual handling risk assessment behaviours six-months after a training program to move patients safely: a pre-post study.

PURPOSE: To determine if a patient manual handling training program focused on dynamic manual handling risk assessment for staff and patient safety, together with the patient's need for physical rehabilitation, can be transferred and sustained in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a pre-post design, nurses (n = 72) from acute and rehabilitation wards participated in a 4-hour training session teaching dynamic manual handling risk assessment to safely move patients. Clinical observations audits of patient transfers were conducted prior to, and at 1-month and 6-months post training. Surveys determined experiences of training. Nurse musculoskeletal injuries and patient falls were measured 6-months after training. RESULTS: Program patient handling skills were competently implemented 89% of the time 1-month following training and were sustained 6-months following training. There was no change in falls rates and staff injury rates were very low pre- and post-training. Training was well received and all nurses passed the competency assessment. CONCLUSION: The patient handling training program taught nurses to better identify factors associated with risk to themselves and their patients and gave them improved skills to help patients move. Skills were incorporated safely into clinical practice and sustained at 6-months. It is uncertain whether training impacted musculoskeletal injuries.Implications for rehabilitationA dynamic manual handling risk assessment program for safely transferring and moving patients balances staff safety with the patient's need for physical rehabilitation.Nurses can be taught risk assessment skills to better identify factors associated with risk to themselves and their patients that can be translated to clinical practice.Thorough risk assessment at the point of the nurse-patient interaction can enable a patient to move at their highest level of function thus providing patients with opportunities to progress their rehabilitation at every interaction.

In Australian hospitals and residential aged care facilities, how do we train nursing and direct care staff to assist patients and residents to move? A national survey.

Objective Nursing workplace injuries related to staff-assisted patient/resident movement occur frequently, however, little is known about the programs that aim to prevent these injuries. The objectives of this study were to: (i) describe how Australian hospitals and residential aged care services provide manual handling training to staff and the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on training; (ii) report issues relating to manual handling; (iii) explore the inclusion of dynamic risk assessment; and (iv) describe the barriers and potential improvements. Method Using a cross-sectional design, an online 20-min survey was distributed by email, social media, and snowballing to Australian hospitals and residential aged care services. Results Respondents were from 75 services across Australia, with a combined 73 000 staff who assist patients/residents to mobilise. Most services provide staff manual handling training on commencement (85%; n = 63/74), then annually (88% n = 65/74). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, training was less frequent, shorter in duration, and with greater online content. Respondents reported issues with staff injuries (63% n = 41), patient/resident falls (52% n = 34), and patient/resident inactivity (69% n = 45). Dynamic risk assessment was missing in part or in whole from most programs (92% n = 67/73), despite a belief that this may reduce staff injuries (93% n = 68/73), patient/resident falls (81% n = 59/73) and inactivity (92% n = 67/73). Barriers included insufficient staff and time, and improvements included giving residents a say in how they move and greater access to allied health. Conclusion Most Australian health and aged care services provide clinical staff with regular manual handling training for staff-assisted patient/resident movement, however, issues with staff injuries, as well as patient/resident falls and inactivity, remain. While there was a belief that dynamic in-the-moment risk assessment during staff-assisted patient/resident movement may improve staff and resident/patient safety, it was missing from most manual handling programs.

Feasibility of implementing an innovative manual handling risk assessment training program for staff working in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: The Risk Assessment for moving Individuals SafEly (RAISE) program is a hospital-based manual handling nursing training program. RAISE involves upskilling on continual risk assessment during patient-assisted movements. RAISE aims to optimise staff and patient safety while providing the patient with movement and rehabilitation opportunities. Implementation of RAISE in the hospital setting has been established. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of implementing RAISE in the long-term care setting. METHODS: We examined three feasibility domains: acceptability, practicality, and limited efficacy (observed nursing behaviour change which has the potential to reduce nursing injuries), using a prospective pilot pre-post design in the long-term care setting. Staff completed a 4-hour training session on RAISE delivered by two physiotherapists, followed by 8 h of supported behaviour change in the workplace. Staff acceptability and practicality of incorporating risk assessment strategies into manual handling approaches were explored through pre- and post-training staff surveys and a semi-structured interview. Resident acceptability of manual handling practices was explored via survey data collected after the RAISE training. Pre to post-training changes in staff knowledge and behaviour were examined through the pre- and post-training staff survey, and observation of staff assisting resident movement. RESULTS: Two enrolled nurses and five residents participated. Staff reported the RAISE program was acceptable and practical to implement in the long-term care setting. There were no adverse events or safety concerns. Staff reported the RAISE program provided guidance and enhanced staff empowerment to make decisions during assisted resident movement. There were 26 observed resident-staff manual handling interactions recorded, with 13 pre-training and 13 post-training. Post-training, RAISE skills had improved and were completed 100% of the time, except for completing a physical risk assessment which improved from 46 to 85%, demonstrating limited efficacy. Residents reported it's important for staff to be trained on how to assist them to mobilise and they found the concept of the RAISE program acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study supports the feasibility of long-term care facilities participating in future studies testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Risk Assessment for moving Individuals SafEly (RAISE) patient and resident manual handling program.

INCLUDING EXERCISE SELF-MANAGEMENT AS PART OF INPATIENT REHABILITATION IS FEASIBLE, SAFE AND EFFECTIVE FOR PATIENTS WITH COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of the My Therapy programme for inpatients with mild-moderate cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Observational pilot study. PATIENTS: Rehabilitation inpatients with mild-moderate cognitive impairment. METHODS: During their inpatient admission, participants received My Therapy, a programme that can increase the dose of rehabilitation through independent self-practice of exercises, outside of supervised therapy. Outcomes included My Therapy participation, falls, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and 10-m walk test. Outcomes were compared with those of participants without cognitive impairment from the original My Therapy study (n = 116) using χ 2 and independent t-tests. RESULTS: Eight participants with mild-moderate cognitive impairment (mean (standard deviation (SD)) age 89.6 years (4.8); 3 women) were included. All participants completed the My Therapy programme on at least one day of their admission, with no associated falls. Participants had an 8.4 s (SD 5.1) reduction in their 10-m walk test and a 21.5 point (SD 11.1) improvement on FIM scores from admission to discharge. There were no significant between-group differences in feasibility, safety or effectiveness for participants with and without cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: This pilot study has shown that including exercise self-management as part of inpatient rehabilitation is feasible, safe and effective for patients with cognitive impairment.