Use of Assistive Devices to Lift, Transfer, and Reposition Hospital Patients.

BACKGROUND: Devices to lift, transfer, and reposition patients are recommended for healthcare workers' and patients' safety, but their intended use has yet to be fully realized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe hospital nursing staff use of lift/transfer devices and the presence of factors at the time of lifts/transfers with potential to influence whether devices are used. METHODS: Participants were 108 US nursing staff in a university-based medical center and two community hospitals. A self-completed questionnaire was used to collect demographic and work characteristics, typical frequency of patient lifts/transfers, training in and typical use of lift equipment, and specific factors that could influence use. Proportional distributions of lifting/transferring and repositioning frequencies in a typical shift, amount of equipment use, and factors present were examined overall and across worker and work-related characteristics. RESULTS: Although trained in equipment use, only 40% used equipment for at least half of lifts/transfers. During lifts/transfers, factors often present included patient unable to help with lift/transfer (91.3%) or of a size/weight where participant needed assistance to help lift/transfer (87.5%); availability of others who could assist with manual lift (86.3%) or use of lift equipment (82.4%); and equipment functioning properly (86.4%), having supplies available (82.5%), and being easy to retrieve from storage (81.6%). During repositioning tasks, physical assistance was "always/almost always" provided from coworkers (83.3%) and often perceived as "very helpful" (92.6%) in reducing physical demands. Physical assistance from patients was less common (14.0% "always/almost always") yet perceived as "very helpful" by 66.3%. One fifth always used friction-reducing devices. DISCUSSION: Despite training in their use, nursing staff use of available lift equipment and assistive devices is limited. Factors present at the time of lifts/transfers that may influence equipment/device use reflect a complex mix of patient, worker, equipment, and situational characteristics.

Factors associated with lift equipment use during patient lifts and transfers by hospital nurses and nursing care assistants: A prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite wide availability of patient lift equipment in hospitals to promote worker and patient safety, nursing staff do not consistently use equipment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of factors on the use or non-use of lift equipment during patient lifts/transfers. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: One university teaching hospital and two community hospitals in a large health system in southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: 77 nurses and nursing care assistants with patient handling duties in critical care, step-down and intermediate care units. METHODS: Participants recorded information about all patient lifts/transfers during their shifts during a 1 week period per month for three months: type of lift/transfer, equipment use, type of equipment, and presence of 20 factors at the time of the lift/transfer. With the patient lift/transfer as the unit of analysis, the association (risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI)) between factors and equipment use was examined using multivariate Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Seventy-seven participants (465 person-shifts) reported 3246 patient lifts/transfers. Frequent lifts/transfers included bed-to-toilet (21%), toilet-to-bed (18%), bed-to-chair (13%), chair-to-bed (13%), chair-to-toilet (6%), and toilet-to-chair (6%). Equipment was used for 21% of lifts/transfers including powered floor based dependent lift (41%), powered sit-to-stand lift (29%), non-powered sit-to-stand lift (17%), air-assisted lateral transfer device (6%), ceiling lift (3%), and air-assist patient lift (3%). Factors associated with equipment use included: availability of equipment supplies (RR = 9.61 [95%CI: 6.32, 14.63]), staff availability to help with equipment (6.64 [4.36, 10.12]), staff preference to use equipment (3.46 [2.48, 4.83]), equipment required for patient condition (2.38 [1.74, 3.25]), patient inability to help with lift/transfer (2.38 [1.71, 3.31]), equipment located in/by patient room (1.82 [1.08, 3.06]), sling already under patient (1.79 [1.27, 2.51]), and patient size/weight (1.38 [0.98, 1.95]). Lower patient mobility score (3.39 [2.19, 5.26]) and presence of physical or mental impairments (2.00 [1.40, 2.86]) were also associated with lift equipment use. Factors associated with non-use of equipment included: patient/family preference (0.31 [0.12, 0.80]), staff assisting with lift did not want to use equipment 0.34 ([0.17, 0.68]), patient condition (0.48 [0.20, 1.20]), and patient almost fell (0.66 [0.45, 0.97]). CONCLUSIONS: Patient, worker, equipment, and situational factors influence whether nursing staff used equipment to lift/transfer a patient. Quantifying and understanding these factors associated with lift equipment use and non-use provides specific information for hospitals and safety professionals to enhance effectiveness of future organizational and ergonomic intervention efforts to prevent work-related patient-handling injuries.