Although patient handlers suffer from low-back injuries at an alarming rate worldwide, there has been limited research quantifying the risk for the specific tasks performed by the patient handlers. The current study used both a comprehensive evaluation system (low-back disorder risk model) and theoretical model (biomechanical spinal loading model) to evaluate risk of LBD of 17 participants (12 experienced and five inexperienced) performing several patient handling tasks. Eight of the participants were female and nine were male. Several patient transfers were evaluated as well as repositioning of the patient in bed; these were performed with one and two people. The patient transfers were between bed and wheelchair (fixed and removable arms) and between commode chair and hospital chair. A 'standard' patient (a 50 kg co-operative female; non-weight bearing but had use of upper body) was used in all patient handling tasks. Overall, patient handling was found to be an extremely hazardous job that had substantial risk of causing a low-back injury whether with one or two patient handlers. The greatest risk was associated with the one-person transferring techniques with the actual task being performed having a limited effect. The repositioning techniques were found to have significant risk of LBD associated with them with the single hook method having the highest LBD risk and spinal loads that exceeded the tolerance limits (worst patient handling job). The two-person draw sheet repositioning technique had the lowest LBD risk and spinal loads but still had relatively high spinal loads and LBD risk. Thus, even the safest of tasks (of the tasks evaluated in this study) had significant risk. Additionally, the current study represented a 'best' case scenario since the patient was relatively light and co-operative. Thus, patient handling in real situations such as in a nursing home, would be expected to be worse. Therefore, to have an impact on LBD, it is necessary to provide mechanical lift assist devices.

A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder risk and spinal loading during the transferring and repositioning of patients using different techniques

BACKGROUND: Health care workers incur frequent injuries resulting from patient transfer and handling tasks. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mechanical lifts in preventing injuries and time loss due to these injuries. METHODS: We examined injury and lost workday rates before and after the introduction of mechanical lifts in acute care hospitals and long-term care (LTC) facilities, and surveyed workers regarding lift use. RESULTS: The post-intervention period showed decreased rates of musculoskeletal injuries (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-1.00), lost workday injuries (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.78), and total lost days due to injury (RR = 0.42). Larger reductions were seen in LTC facilities than in hospitals. Self-reported frequency of lift use by registered nurses and by nursing aides were higher in the LTC facilities than in acute care hospitals. Observed reductions in injury and lost day injury rates were greater on nursing units that reported greater use of the lifts. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of patient lifts can be effective in reducing occupational musculoskeletal injuries to nursing personnel in both LTC and acute care settings. Strategies to facilitate greater use of mechanical lifting devices should be explored, as further reductions in injuries may be possible with increased use. Language: en

Reduction in injury rates in nursing personnel through introduction of mechanical lifts in the workplace

Study design Randomized controlled trial (RCT). Objectives To compare the effectiveness of training and equipment to reduce musculoskeletal injuries, increase comfort, and reduce physical demands on staff performing patient lifts and transfers at a large acute care hospital. Summary of background data Back injury to nursing staff during patient handling tasks is a major issue in health care. The value of mechanical assistive devices in reducing injuries to these workers is unclear. Methods This three-armed RCT consisted of a "control arm," a "safe lifting" arm, and a "no strenuous lifting" arm. A medical, surgical, and rehabilitation ward were each randomly assigned to each arm. Both intervention arms received intensive training in back care, patient assessment, and handling techniques. Hence, the "safe lifting" arm used improved patient handling techniques using manual equipment, whereas the "no strenuous lifting" arm aimed to eliminate manual patient handling through use of additional mechanical and other assistive equipment. Results Frequency of manual patient handling tasks was significantly decreased on the "no strenuous lifting" arm. Self-perceived work fatigue, back and shoulder pain, safety, and frequency and intensity of physical discomfort associated with patient handling tasks were improved on both intervention arms, but staff on the mechanical equipment arm showed greater improvements. Musculoskeletal injury rates were not significantly altered. Conclusions The "no strenuous lifting" program, which combined training with assured availability of mechanical and other assistive patient handling equipment, most effectively improved comfort with patient handling, decreased staff fatigue, and decreased physical demands. The fact that injury rates were not statistically significantly reduced may reflect the less sensitive nature of this indicator compared with the subjective indicators.

A randomized controlled trial to prevent patient lift and transfer injuries of health care workers.

Biomechanical analysis of peak and cumulative spinal loads during simulated patient-handling activities: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial to prevent lift and transfer injury of health care workers

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mechanical patient lifts in reducing musculoskeletal symptoms, injuries, lost workday injuries, and workers’ compensation costs in workers at a community hospital. Design: Pre-post intervention study. Setting: Three nursing units of a small community hospital. Patients or subjects: Nursing personnel. Interventions: Mechanical patient lifts were made available and nursing staff trained in their use between August 2000 and January 2001. Main outcome measures: Workers completed symptom surveys at baseline and six months after lift training. Pre-intervention and post-intervention rates of injuries and lost workday injuries using Occupational Safety and Health Administration logs of the three study units, from the period July 1999 through March 2003 were analyzed. Injuries potentially related to lifting patients were included in the analyses. Using workers’ compensation data from the same time period, the compensation paid ($ per full time equivalent [FTE]) due to injuries during the pre-intervention and post-intervention period was calculated. Results: Sixty one staff members were surveyed pre-intervention; 36 (59%) completed follow up surveys. Statistically significant improvements in musculoskeletal comfort (p Conclusion: Reductions were observed in injury rates, lost workday injury rates, workers’ compensation costs, and musculoskeletal symptoms after deployment of mechanical patient lifts. Strengths of this study include the community hospital setting and the inclusion of a variety of different outcomes. Limitations include the pre-post study design and the small sample size.

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/10/4/212.full.pdf

Use of mechanical patient lifts decreased musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries among health care workers

In the present laboratory study five two-person manual lifting techniques were evaluated as to the amount of physical exertion required of the nurses. Ten female volunteers served as nurses; two healthy volunteers (weight: 55 kg and 75 kg) served as passive patients. The working postures and motions were recorded on videotape. The data thus obtained were used in a anatomical-biomechanical analysis. The perceived exertion by the nurses was measured as well. In almost all situations the compressive forces on the nurse's spine exceeded their acceptable limit of 3425 N. Differences between the lifting techniques were most obvious when the 55 kg patient was lifted. Ratings of the perceived exertion (RPE scores) were higher in symmetrical handling than in asymmetrical handling. The three techniques using asymmetrical hand positions produced less subjective stress. RPE scores and rotation of the back were negatively correlated. Rotating the back when moving a patient from one side to the other seems to ease the task. On the whole, the results of the biomechanical evaluation are in line with the subjective perception of the nurses. In both instances the barrow lift appeared to be the most strenuous one; the Australian lift resulted in low compressive forces and a moderate level of perceived exertion.

M. R. Drost

Papers

An evaluation of patient lifting techniques