Risk assessment of healthcare workers' exposure to physical load in relation to patient handling and movement: a feasibility study of the instrument TilThermometer.

BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are common among healthcare workers (HCWs) but might be prevented by risk assessment and further promotion of occupational safety and health. The aim of this study was to investigate if the risk assessment instrument TilThermometer can be used to identify risk profiles of physical exposure in HCWs working with patient handling and movement (PHM). Further aims were to describe HCWs' perceptions and experiences of using the TilThermometer. METHODS: This feasibility study has a mixed design methodology. In total, 54 HCWs from 17 Swedish care units participated and performed risk assessments with the TilThermometer. Data collected from the risk assessments were used to identify risk profiles of physical exposure. HCWs' experiences of using the TilThermometer were collected from activity logs and analysed qualitatively. Three questionnaires were used to assess perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the risk assessment, and eight study specific questions were used for perceived usefulness. RESULTS: The TilThermometer was used at the care units by assessing each care recipient, and when compiling the data at a group level, a summarized risk profile for the care unit could be provided. Risk for physical exposure was reported as high in two work tasks; no care unit used the high-low adjustable seat when showering care recipients sitting down, and 13% used the recommended assistive devices when putting compression stockings on. However, 99% used high-low adjustable assistive devices when caring and bathing care recipients lying down. TilThermometer was described as easy to use, enabling team reflections and providing an overview of the care units' recipients and workload, but difficulties in categorizing for mobility groups were also reported. The TilThermometer was, on a five-point scale, perceived as acceptable (mean 3.93), appropriate (mean 3.9), and feasible (mean 3.97). These scores are in line with questions evaluating usefulness. CONCLUSION: The risk assessment provided risk profiles with potential to contribute to care units' development of a safe patient handling and movement practice. The findings suggest that the TilThermometer can be used to assess risks for physical exposure in relation to patient handling and movement in care units at hospital and nursing homes.

Individual and organizational factors associated with injury history and patient handling behaviors: Results from a nationwide survey of healthcare workers.

With proper compliance, safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) programs reduce musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). To better understand individual, environmental, and organizational factors associated with both the adoption of SPHM and prevalence of MSDs, a nationwide online survey was administered. 973 healthcare workers (HCWs) completed the survey, for which 59.6% reported past work-related MSDs or pain. Among those with pain or injury, 33.3% changed roles, 79.7% worked while injured, and only 30.9% reported workers' compensation claims. Less than half of HCWs agreed that SPHM equipment is readily available, and most considered manually handling patients weighing over 91 kg acceptable. Equipment availability, ceiling lift availability, supervisor encouragement, and annual training were associated with increased use of SPHM equipment. Availability of SPHM equipment reduced the likelihood of injured nurses changing roles. Despite overall agreement that SPHM programs are beneficial, common clinical practice remains insufficient to adequately protect HCWs from risk of injury.

Impact of California Safe Patient Handling Legislation: Health Care Workers' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal injuries from patient handling are significant problems among health care workers. In California, legislation requiring hospitals to implement safe patient handling (SPH) programs was enacted in 2011. This qualitative study explored workers' experiences and perceptions about the law, their hospital's SPH policies and programs, patient handling practices, and work environment. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted with 21 participants (19 nurses and 2 patient handling specialists) recruited from 12 hospitals located in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley. Qualitative content analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Multiple themes emerged from diverse experiences and perceptions. Positive perceptions included empowerment to advocate for safety, increased awareness of SPH policies and programs, increased provision of patient handling equipment and training, increased lift use, and improvement in safety culture. Perceived concerns included continuing barriers to safe practices and lift use such as difficulty securing assistance, limited availability of lift teams, understaffing, limited nursing employee input in the safety committee, blaming of individuals for injury, increased workload, and continuing injury concerns. Participants indicated the need for effective training, sufficient staffing, and management support for injured workers. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: This study identified improvements in hospitals' SPH programs and practices since the passage of California's SPH law, as well as continuing challenges and barriers to safe practices and injury prevention. The findings provide useful information to understanding the positive impacts of the SPH law but also notes the potential limitations of this legislation in the view of health care workers.

Using a Mechanical Lift at Home.

This article is part of a series, Supporting Family Caregivers: No Longer Home Alone, published in collaboration with the AARP Public Policy Institute. Results of focus groups, conducted as part of the AARP Public Policy Institute's No Longer Home Alone video project, supported evidence that family caregivers aren't given the information they need to manage the complex care regimens of family members. This series of articles and accompanying videos aims to help nurses provide caregivers with the tools they need to manage their family member's health care at home. Nurses should read the articles first, so they understand how best to help family caregivers. Then they can refer caregivers to the informational tear sheet-Information for Family Caregivers-and instructional videos, encouraging them to ask questions. For additional information, see Resources for Nurses.

Person transfer assist systems: a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Novel developments in the robotics field have produced systems that can support person wheelchair transfers, maximize safety and reduce caregiver burden. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe these systems, their usability (or satisfaction), the context for which they have been or can be used and how they have been evaluated to determine evidence for their effectiveness. METHOD: Available research on Person Transfer Assist Systems (PTAS) was systematically gathered using similar standards to the PRISMA guidelines. The search terms were derived from common terms and via exploring similar review articles. Initial search terms displayed 1330 articles and by using the inclusion/exclusion criteria 96 articles were selected for abstract review. After full- text reviewing 48 articles were included. RESULTS: 29 articles concerned research in robotic transfer systems, 10 articles used both ceiling and floor-mounted lifts and 9 articles used only floor-mounted lifts as an intervention/control group. The results of this analysis identified a few usability evaluations for robotic transfer prototypes, especially ones comparing prototypes to existing marketed devices. CONCLUSION: Robotic device research is a recent development within assistive technology. Whilst usability evaluations provided evidence that a robotic device will provide better service to the user, the sample number of subjects used are minimal in comparison to any of the intervention/control group articles. Experimental studies between PTASs are required to support technological advancements. Caregiver injury risk has been the focus for most of the comparison articles; however, few articles focus on the implications to the person.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCeiling mounted lifts are preferred over floor-based lifts due to lower injury rates.Many robotic transfer systems have been developed; however, there is a paucity of quantitative and qualitative studies.Based on the results of this review, rehabilitation settings are recommended to use ceiling over floor assist systems, and it is recommended to provide training on using devices to assist with patient transfers to lower the risk of injuries.

Assessment of Muscle Activation of Caregivers Performing Dependent Transfers With a Novel Robotic-Assisted Transfer Device Compared With the Hoyer Advance.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare muscle activity in caregivers while using a novel robotic-assisted transfer device (Strong Arm) to a clinical standard of care (Hoyer Advance). DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design was used in which 20 caregivers (33 ± 15 yrs old) performed transfers with three surfaces (toilet, bench, and shower chair) with the Strong Arm and Hoyer Advance. Transfer completion time (seconds), peak percentage surface electromyography (EMG), and integrated EMG of the bilateral erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, pectoralis major and anterior deltoid were measured. RESULTS: Caregivers required less transfer time when transferring from wheelchair to surface using the Hoyer Advance (P = 0.011, f = 0.39). For the lower back, significantly lower peak percentage EMGs were found using Strong Arm in 50% and for the integrated EMG in 25% of the cases, with the remaining cases showing no significant differences. For the shoulder, significantly lower peak percentage EMG values were found using Strong Arm in 19% of transfers and lower integrated EMG was found in 25% of transfers when using the Hoyer Advance, with the remaining cases showing no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Although back muscle activation during Strong Arm transfers is statistically, but not clinically, lower, additional features that couple with significantly lower muscle activation make it an alternative to the clinical standard for further research and possible clinical applicability.

Air-assisted devices reduce biomechanical loading in the low back and upper extremities during patient turning tasks.

This laboratory study evaluated different assistive devices for reducing biomechanical loading during patient turning tasks. Twenty caregivers (18 females and 2 males) performed standardized patient turning tasks with two simulated patients (body mass: 74 kg and 102 kg). The turning tasks were performed in two turning directions (toward vs. away relative to caregivers) using five device conditions: draw sheet, friction-reducing turning sheet, air-assisted transfer device, air-assisted turning device, and no assistive device. Low back and upper extremity muscle activity, trunk and shoulder postures, low back moment, and self-reported usability ratings were evaluated. While all assistive devices reduced trunk flexion, both air-assisted transfer and turning devices reduced the trunk flexion (p's < 0.001) and muscle activity (p's < 0.001) in the erector spinae and triceps compared to no assistive device condition. These results suggest that the air-assisted devices have potential as an effective intervention to considerably reduce physical risk factors associated with caregivers' musculoskeletal disorders in low back and upper extremities.

The use of safe patient handling and mobility equipment in rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, occupational and physical therapists are using safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) equipment, such as mechanical lifts, in rehabilitation. However, there is little guidance in the literature on how SPHM equipment can be used to assist patients to reach rehabilitation goals. The purpose of this projectwas to document and categorize common and innovative ways rehabilitation therapists use SPHM equipment in their clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This article investigates common and innovative uses of SPHM equipment in rehabilitation practice. METHODS: Occupational, physical and kinesio therapist employed at the Veterans Health Administration wrote narratives and took photos describing rehabilitation therapy activities where they used SPHM equipment in their clinical practice. The authors used a systematic process to review and categorize the narratives and subsequent photos by using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). RESULTS: Thirty narratives (13 innovative and 17 common) were coded into four categories on the ICF section of mobility. The most common category was "changing and maintaining basic body position"(21) followed by "walking and moving" (5). The category "carrying, moving and handling objects" garnered two narratives and there were no narratives for "using transportation." CONCLUSIONS: Project findings may serve as a guide for therapists who would like to enhance their use of SPHM equipment in rehabilitation. Additional research is needed to expand the use of SPHM in rehabilitation practice and evaluate the impact on patient rehabilitation outcomes and therapist safety outcomes.

Bariatric Space, Technology, and Design: A Round Table.

BACKGROUND: Planning and executing healthcare for the patient or resident living with obesity can be a challenging task that has implications to the occupational health professional. METHODS: Leading global experts in the areas of occupational health, ergonomics, bariatrics, technology, and patient care were identified and invited to participate in a round table discussion. Questions posed to experts were based on literature that addressed patient handling and mobility, architectural design recommendations, clinical care of the person with obesity, and ergonomic guidelines. FINDINGS: Experts agreed that special considerations must be in place to care for the person who is obese. These special considerations should address not only clinical care of the patient, but ways to protect workers from occupational injury associated with clinical care. Experts suggested that, in some situations, a bariatric training suit may be helpful in better understanding space and design challenges, as well as a better understanding of the physical limitations associated with a larger body habitus (although simulated). Further, experts agreed that insensitivities often stem from failure to have proper space, technology and design accommodations in place. Conclusions/Application to Practice: The occupational health professional is a key resource to teams charged with planning and executing healthcare for the patient or resident living with obesity. Interprofessional understanding and communication can lead to a more comprehensive approach to space, design and technology that not only addresses the patient, but the worker providing direct care.

Comparing a patient positioning system to an overhead LIFT with pillows for impact on turning effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Frequent patient handling activities present numerous challenges to healthcare workers. A variety of products are available to assist with in-bed positioning but few comparative studies have been completed to ascertain turning effectiveness. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to compare two turning devices (air-powered positioning system with wedges versus ceiling lift with pillows) for in-bed repositioning and turning effectiveness. The study took place at a large community hospital in the Midwestern USA and used a prospective, four-group crossover study design to compare devices. RESULTS: The two turning groups were not significantly different for any of the demographic variables. The use of an air-powered positioning system with wedges achieved a greater degree of turn and maintained that turn after an hour better than the lift device with pillows. There were no hospital acquired pressure injuries in either group. CONCLUSION: The devices used demonstrated significant differences in turn angle achieved and ability to maintain the turn at one hour. Future studies need to further delineate the ideal method for turning and compare devices to identify best practice and equipment. An effective turning method would integrate ease of use with the ability to achieve an optimal degree of turn in order to prevent hospital acquired pressure injuries while also decreasing caregiver injuries.

Factors associated with safe patient handling practice in acute care and its relationship with patient mobilization: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Mobilizing hospital patients is associated with improved outcomes and shorter length of stay. Safe patient handling and mobility programs that include mechanical lift use facilitate mobilizing patients and reduce the likelihood of musculoskeletal disorders in staff. However, there is little information on the prevalence of lift use or why some patients are more likely to have a lift used than others. Such information is needed to inform public policy, benchmark lift use over time, and contextualize barriers for lift use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of patients that had a lift used during care in US acute care facilities, identify attributes related to the patient and their hospital stay that affect the lift use, examine whether state legislation increased lift use, and determine whether lift use was correlated with more frequent mobilization out of bed. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 2018 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence ™ data. PARTICIPANTS: 40,856 patients in 642 US acute care hospitals over the age of 18 with complete data. METHODS: Lift use prevalence was calculated as the percentage of patients that met inclusion criteria that had a lift used for care. Prevalence was then analyzed by patient mobility level. A logistic regression examined the influence of patient and facility related attributes. For patients with limited mobility (that could not stand or turn themselves), a t-test of proportions evaluated whether lift use during a patient's stay was correlated with an increased likelihood of being out of bed at the time of the survey. RESULTS: 3.7% of patients had a lift used during their care. 11.1% of limited mobility patients had a lift used. Lift use was associated with higher body mass, longer length of stay, lower Braden score, pressure injury prevention methods in place, being in an intensive care unit, being in a smaller hospital, and being in a state with safe patient handling and mobility legislation. Limited mobility patients moved with lifts during their stay were more likely to be observed in a bedside chair and less likely to be observed in bed, as compared to patients that never had a lift used. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the benefits to patients and caregivers, US acute care facilities are largely not using lifts to safely mobilize patients. Results suggested that safe patient handling and mobility legislation has increased the rate of lift use. Finally, lift use was correlated with patients being mobilized out of bed.

Efficacy of BPPV diagnosis and treatment system for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of automatic benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) diagnosis and treatment system for BPPV compared with the manual repositioning group. METHODS: Two hundred thirty patients diagnosed as idiopathic BPPV who were admitted from August 2018 to July 2019 in Zhejiang Hospital were included. Among them, 150 patients of posterior semicircular canal BPPV(pc-BPPV), 53 patients of horizontal semicircular canal BPPV(hc-BPPV), and 27 patients of horizontal semicircular canal calculus (hc-BPPV-cu) were randomly treated with BPPV diagnosis and treatment system(the experimental group) or manual repositioning (the control group). Resolution of vertigo and nystagmus on the Dix-Hallpike and Roll test on day 3,day 7,day 14 and day 28 follow-up after first treatment was the main outcome measure to assess the efficacy of treatment. RESULTS: At 3-day and 7-day follow-up after treatment with BPPV diagnosis and treatment system, 79%, 91%had complete resolution of vertigo and nystagmus, the effective rate in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group, the differences were statistically significant(P < .05). On day 14, the effective rate in the experimental group (96%) was slightly higher than that in the control group(91%), but there was no significant difference between the two groups. And at 28-day after the first treatment, the effective rate was 100% in the experimental group and the control group. The repositioning efficiency of pc-BPPV (the first, second, third treatment), hc-BPPV (the first, second, third treatment), hc-BPPV-cu(the first, second treatment) in the experimental group were higher than the control group, and the secondary reposition of pc-BPPV in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group(96%vs.84%; P < .05). While for the hc-BPPV-cu patients, the effective rate of the third treatment in the experimental group was slightly lower than that of the control group, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: BPPV diagnosis and treatment system is effective for the treatment of BPPV, with a better effective rate than those treated with manual maneuver, and is safe and easy to perform on patients.

Comparison of lift use, perceptions, and musculoskeletal symptoms between ceiling lifts and floor-based lifts in patient handling.

Lifting equipment can reduce the risk of injury from patient handling, but limited availability and adoption have been a persistent problem. Data from statewide surveys of California nurses (N = 389) in 2013 and 2016 were analyzed to evaluate lift use, perceptions about lifts and injury risk, and musculoskeletal symptoms by type of available lifts. Nurses with ceiling lifts (23%) were significantly more likely to use lifts and had more positive perceptions about lifts, regarding worker safety, patient safety and comfort, ease of use, access, and storing, than nurses with only floor lifts (77%). Nurses with ceiling lifts reported less low back pain and shoulder pain. Our study findings suggest that providing ceiling lifts can result in superior outcomes to floor-based lifts in multiple aspects, including better acceptance and use by nurses for patient handling, as well as being associated with reduced work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in the low back and shoulders.

Lateral Transfer Assist Robot (LTAR): Development of a proof-of-concept prototype.

BACKGROUND: Falls during transfer to and from a wheelchair are associated with numerous problems. Factors responsible for difficulty in transferring include horizontal/vertical gaps between surfaces; obstacles, such as armrests; and complicated brake/footrests configurations before transferring. Moreover, controlling a wheelchair sufficiently close to the transfer surface within the confined home space is difficult. OBJECTIVE: We described the design of the novel Lateral Transfer Assist Robot (LTAR) for solving problems during transfer. Furthermore, the effectiveness and usability of the robot were preliminary examined in healthy adults. METHOD: The transfer problems and basic designs were organized. The effectiveness of the prototype was measured by three-dimensional motion analysis and questionnaire. RESULTS: The prototype LTAR was developed. With just a push on a button, the footplate lowers to the floor and the seat and armrest lowers to the height of the seating surface to fill the gap between the surfaces. Using these features, users can transfer by simply shifting their buttocks sideways. Additionally, LTAR has omnidirectional wheels that help move it within a narrow space. The LTAR was confirmed to reduce the physical and subjective burden, except for maneuverability. CONCLUSION: The LTAR was found to be effective for home use and reducing burden of transfer.

A biomechanical evaluation of potential ergonomic solutions for use by firefighter and EMS providers when lifting heavy patients in their homes.

Firefighters and EMS providers continue to be challenged when lifting heavy patients in their homes. This study investigated the biomechanical efficacy of four devices that could be used by two-person teams when lifting patients from the floor, from a reclining chair, or from a Simulated Inflatable Seat at chair height. Fourteen firefighter-paramedics, working in two-person teams, were instrumented with motion capture and electromyographic sensors. The Binder Lift™, the Simple Strap, and the Slip Preventer were used to lift patient actors, and were compared to current lifting methods. Postural data and the peak dynamic spine shear forces at the L5/S1 level were reduced when using the Simple Strap, the Binder Lift, and the Simulated Inflatable Seat. The Slip Preventer reduced spine flexion when the Binder Lift was not used. In summary, the tested devices can potentially reduce the biomechanical loads experienced by EMS providers as they lift and move patients.

Can the Use of Turn-Assist Surfaces Reduce the Physical Burden on Caregivers When Performing Patient Turning?

OBJECTIVE: To quantify differences in physical workload afforded by turn-assist surfaces relative to manual patient turns, and between nursing caregivers (turn-away vs. turn-toward) while performing partnered patient turning. BACKGROUND: Nurse caregivers experience an increased risk of musculoskeletal injuries at the back or shoulders when performing patient-handling activities. Use of turn-assist surfaces can reduce the physical burden and risk on caregivers. METHOD: Whole-body motion capture and hand force measures were collected from 25 caregivers (17 female) while performing partnered manual and technology-facilitated turns. Shoulder and low back angles and L4/L5 joint contact forces were calculated at the instant of peak hand force application for both caregivers. RESULTS: Hand force requirements for the turn-away caregiver were 93% of the estimated maximum acceptable force when performing a manual turn. Use of a turn-assist surface eliminated hand forces required to initiate the patient turn for the turn-away caregiver, where their role was reduced to inserting appropriate wedging behind the patient once the facilitated turn was complete. This reduced shoulder moments by 21.3 Nm for the turn-away caregiver, a reduction in exposure from 70% of maximum shoulder strength capacity to 15%. Spine compression exposures were reduced by 302.1 N for the turn-toward caregiver when using a turn-assist surface. CONCLUSION: Use of a turn-assist surface reduced peak hand force and shoulder-related exposures for turning away and reduced spine-related exposures for turning toward. APPLICATION: Turn-assist devices should be recommended to decrease the risk of musculoskeletal disorder hazards for both caregivers when performing a partnered patient turn.

Do active assist transfer devices improve transfer safety for patients and caregivers in hospital and community settings? A scoping review.

Background: Safe patient handling practices reduce injury risk for healthcare workers (HCW) and patients, but may conflict with goals of rehabilitation and person-centred care by minimizing (a) active participation in transfers and (b) autonomy and dignity while using mechanical lifts. Active assist transfer devices (AATDs) have potential to address both safety and support needs for appropriate clients.Purpose: What is the scope and nature of the evidence to support the use of AATD for improving transfer safety for patients and caregivers in both hospital and community settings?Methods: Scoping review of peer-reviewed and Gray literature, using systematic search strategies and multiple reviewers for identifying papers and extracting data.Findings: Twenty-nine peer-reviewed publications, and 12 other documents (policy, technical) were included in the review. Half focused on HCW safety in the hospital setting, with only seven addressing patient safety in the community. Generally, literature was of low quality, with no controlled trials to support the benefit of this equipment, and often represented a nursing care perspective. However, positive outcomes reported included safety, satisfaction, and equipment utilization.Implications: There is a need for rigorous research on use of AATDs in the community comparing rehabilitation outcomes across other forms of transfer equipment. Other important targets include injury risk for family caregivers, and potential to support early discharge. At present, utilization of AATDs within the rehabilitation field will continue to rely on best judgement of the care team. Implementation of AATDs should be considered a compelling target for practice-based research and quality improvements.Implications for rehabilitationThe use of active assist transfer devices is associated with their availability in the in-patient hospital setting.The use of active assist transfer devices is associated with positive patient experience, such as increased patient satisfaction and dignity. Improved patient adherence and cooperation with healthcare workers during mobilization and rehabilitation may follow.Most current evidence is focused on caregiver safety outcomes and is in support of decreased injury rates with increased active assist transfer device use. There is a limited amount of evidence focusing on the rehabilitation outcomes with active assist transfer device use.With current evidence, the use of AATDs should be used at the discretion of the care team.