RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine how safe-patient-handling (SPH) equipment is used in rehabilitation and how it affects therapists, patients, and therapy practice. METHOD: We used a qualitative, instrumental case study design. Thirty-five occupational and physical therapist practitioners from three facilities participated in the study. RESULTS: Therapists reported a broad range of applications for equipment (e.g., functional mobility and neuromusculoskeletal function). They reported that SPH equipment increased treatment options for therapists and increased participation options for patients, although equipment limitations exist. Three themes emerged from the analysis: choice, potential, and safety. CONCLUSION: SPH equipment has therapeutic applications in rehabilitation, especially for medically complex or bariatric patients. Therapists in this study engaged in a highly individualized, complex process of decision making when selecting and using SPH devices in rehabilitation. More research to refine and test therapeutic uses is necessary.
Assuntos
Saúde Ocupacional , Terapia Ocupacional/instrumentação , Enfermagem em Reabilitação/instrumentação , Adulto , Tomada de Decisões , Pessoas com Deficiência/reabilitação , Deambulação Precoce , Desenho de Equipamento , Segurança de Equipamentos , Grupos Focais , Humanos , Movimentação e Reposicionamento de Pacientes/instrumentação , Movimentação e Reposicionamento de Pacientes/métodos , Estudos de Casos Organizacionais , Posicionamento do Paciente/instrumentação , Segurança do Paciente , Modalidades de Fisioterapia/instrumentaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Interventions to reduce patient-handling injuries in the hospital setting are often evaluated based on their effect on outcomes such as injury rates. Measuring intervention adoption could address how and why observed trends in the outcome occurred. METHODS: Unit-level data related to adoption of patient lift equipment were systematically collected at several points in time over 5 years on nursing units at two hospitals, including hours of lift equipment use, equipment accessibility, and supply purchases and availability. RESULTS: Various measures of adoption highlighted the adoption process' gradual nature and variability by hospital and between units. No single measure adequately assessed adoption. Certain measures appear well-correlated. CONCLUSION: Future evaluation of primary preventive efforts designed to prevent patient-handling injuries would be strengthened by objective data on intermediate measures that reflect intervention implementation and adoption.
