Remote area staff performing manual patient handling tasks in the absence of patient lifting hoists available in most health care settings are at an elevated risk of musculoskeletal injuries. The objective of this project was to identify the patient handling methods that have the lowest risk of injury. The patient handling task of lifting a patient from floor to a chair or wheelchair is a common task performed in a remote health care setting. The task was performed utilising three methods, these being: (1) heads/tails lift, (2) use of two Blue MEDesign?? slings and (3) use of a drawsheet. The task of the heads/tails lift was broken down into two distinctly separate subtasks: lifting from the (1) head and (2) tail ends of the patient load. These techniques were selected based on criteria including current practice, durability, portability, accessibility, ease of storage and cost to supply. Postural data were obtained using a Vicon 370 three - dimensional motion measurement and analysis system in the Biomechanics & Gait laboratory at the University of New South Wales. Forty reflective markers were placed on the subject to obtain the following joint angles: ankle, knee, hip, torso, shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The raw data were converted into the respective joint angles (Y, X, Z) for further analysis. The postural data was analysed using the University of Michigan???s Three-Dimensional Static Strength Prediction Program (3D SSPP) and the relative risk of injury was based on the following three values: (1) a threshold value of 3,400 N for compression force, (2) a threshold value of 500 N for shear force, and (3) population strength capability data. The effects on changes to the anthropometric data was estimated and analysed using the in-built anthropometric data contained within the 3D SSPP program for 6 separate lifter scenarios, these being male and female 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles. Changes to the patient load were estimated and analysed using the same computer software. Estimated compressive and shear forces were found to be lower with the drawsheet and tail component of the heads/tails lift in comparison to the use of the Blue MEDesign?? straps and head component of the heads/tails lift. The results obtained for the strength capability aspect of each of the lifts indicated a higher percentage of the population capable of both the drawsheet and tail end of the heads/tails lift. The relative risk of back injury for the lifters is distributed more evenly with the drawsheet lift as opposed to the heads/tails (tail) lift where risk is disproportionate with the heavier end being lifted. The use of lifter anthropometrics does not appear to be a realistic variable to base assumptions on which group of the population are capable of safely performing this task in a remote setting. This study advocates the use of the drawsheet lift in a remote setting based on the author???s experience and the biomechanical results obtained in this study. The drawsheet lift is both more accessible and provides a more acceptable risk when more than two patient handlers are involved, in comparison to the other lifts utilised lifting patients from floor to a chair.

No description available.

Caregivers injure their backs more than workers in any other industry. Efforts to reduce injuries have been on-going for decades with limited results. Mechanical lift devices have been incorporated into clinical practice over the past 30 years to reduce the risk of injury from patient lifting. Yet injury rates remain high. The use of mechanical lifts may be partly to blame. While these devices assist with lifting patients, they also introduce new activities that result in caregivers experiencing unsafe loading on the spine. We measured loads on the lower back during manoeuvres of the two most common lift types (overhead and floor) as well as during sling insertion. A new device called SlingSerterTM was evaluated for use in the clinical environment. We also investigated spine shrinkage as a measurement tool for estimating cumulative load. Caregivers worked alone and in pairs for both lift maneuvering and sling insertion activities. Overhead lift use resulted in much lower loads than floor lift use. We conclude caregivers can safely operate overhead lifts alone, while floor lift use remained unsafe even with two caregivers. Less-experienced caregivers had higher loads than more-experienced counterparts when using floor lifts. There was no corresponding effect of experience with overhead lift use and we found this to be a further benefit of overhead lifts over floor lifts. Most caregivers exceeded the safe limit for spine compression during sling insertion, though a single caregiver was at no higher risk of injury than two caregivers working together. Clinicians who tested SlingSerterTM agreed the device would be useful in clinical practice, particularly with bariatric patients and other special patient populations that are difficult to roll or turn. Finally, we investigated a novel method for estimating cumulative load based on spine shrinkage. There is growing recognition that excess cumulative load may be responsible for back injury. We found the variability in spine shrinkage was too large to estimate cumulative load directly. However, the technique may still be useful for determining the relative importance of the load from different activities to the cumulative total.

Caregivers injure their backs more than workers in any other industry. Efforts to reduce injuries have been on-going for decades with limited results. Mechanical lift devices have been incorporated into clinical practice over the past 30 years to reduce the risk of injury from patient lifting. Yet injury rates remain high. The use of mechanical lifts may be partly to blame. While these devices assist with lifting patients, they also introduce new activities that result in caregivers experiencing unsafe loading on the spine. We measured loads on the lower back during manoeuvres of the two most common lift types (overhead and floor) as well as during sling insertion. A new device called SlingSerterTM was evaluated for use in the clinical environment. We also investigated spine shrinkage as a measurement tool for estimating cumulative load. Caregivers worked alone and in pairs for both lift maneuvering and sling insertion activities. Overhead lift use resulted in much lower loads than floor lift use. We conclude caregivers can safely operate overhead lifts alone, while floor lift use remained unsafe even with two caregivers. Less-experienced caregivers had higher loads than more-experienced counterparts when using floor lifts. There was no corresponding effect of experience with overhead lift use and we found this to be a further benefit of overhead lifts over floor lifts. Most caregivers exceeded the safe limit for spine compression during sling insertion, though a single caregiver was at no higher risk of injury than two caregivers working together. Clinicians who tested SlingSerterTM agreed the device would be useful in clinical practice, particularly with bariatric patients and other special patient populations that are difficult to roll or turn. Finally, we investigated a novel method for estimating cumulative load based on spine shrinkage. There is growing recognition that excess cumulative load may be responsible for back injury. We found the variability in spine shrinkage was too large to estimate cumulative load directly. However, the technique may still be useful for determining the relative importance of the load from different activities to the cumulative total.

Previous literature has indicated that nursing personnel face the second highest rate of occupational injury and illness. Assistive equipment, such as lift and transfer aids, has helped lower work task demands and reduce back stress on patient handlers. However, limited attention has been paid to the safety, comfort and dignity of the patient in postoperative care. Research on the efficacy of self-transfer aids for patients who require limited or no assistance by nursing personnel is insufficient. Ratings of comfort and security have only been evaluated for nursing home residents in a pilot field study, in which residents rated assistive devices as generally equal to or more secure and comfortable than manual transfer methods. The first study reports the laboratory evaluation of bed rising with the use of two self-transfer aids and bed rising unassisted. The objective was to determine muscle activity during bed rising tasks with and without the use of a bed assistive device using surface electromyography (EMG). Twenty male (n = 9; age, 33.7 ± 8.0 years) and female (n = 11; age, 34.5 ± 23.9 years) participants, with normal body mass index (BMI) ranging from 18.4 to 24.9, took part in the study. Mean and peak activity was recorded from three abdominal muscle sites. The results indicated bed rising with the use of a self-transfer device significantly reduced muscle activity compared to bed rising unassisted. Anchoring the devices at a higher height and elevating the torso further reduced muscle activity. Although no differences were observed between devices using EMG, results from the usability survey and final ranking indicated favorable ratings for the ABNOSTRAINTM prototype compared to the Bed Pull-up. A second study was conducted to determine the efficacy of a bed assistive device in a patient population. The objective was to compare self-perceived recovery measures and usage of pain medication between patients in the control (n = 8; age, 34.0 ± 6.3years) and device (n = 7; 40.7 ± 12.4) groups. A total of fifteen female participants undergoing either abdominal hysterectomy (n = 6) or Cesarean-section (n = 9) procedures were recruited for the study. Both groups completed a total of twelve questionnaires over a five-week recovery period. Responses to self-perceived recovery measures were significantly different. In general, the device group reported higher levels of energy, less pain interference, lower perceived pain, less reliance on pain medication and returned to activities of daily living faster than the control group. The results from the study provide clinicians or other practitioners information on the benefits of bed assistive devices for patients during postoperative recovery. Age and surgery differences should be considered when suggesting bed movement patterns with assistive intervention. / Master of Science

The Kinaesthetics care conception is a nursing approach for patient handling which aims to prevent work-related complaints and diseases. The evidence about the influence of Kinaesthetics on musculoskeletal disorders among persons who handle patients is unclear to date. The purposes of the scoping review are to gain insight into the current state of research regarding the clinical effectiveness of Kinaesthetics (in terms of perceived exertion and musculoskeletal complaints) among persons who handle patients and to identify potential research gaps. A scoping review was conducted. The search strategy comprised a systematic search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL), a hand search, a fast forward search (Web of Science) and a Google scholar-search. The review process was carried out independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed for all studies using three methodological main categories (reporting quality, internal validity, external validity). Thirteen studies with different study designs were included. Seven studies investigated musculoskeletal complaints and nine studies the perceived exertion of nursing staff. Most studies were of very low methodology. Most studies reported a decrease of musculoskeletal complaints and perceived exertion due to Kinaesthetics. In conclusion, there is only little evidence of very low quality about the effectiveness of Kinaesthetics. Out of the studies it could be assumed that Kinaesthetics may decrease the patient handling related perceived exertion and musculoskeletal pain of persons who handle patients. But an overestimation of these results is likely, due to inadequate methodology of included studies. As a result, no clear recommendations about the effectiveness of the Kinaesthetics care conception can be made yet. Since a research gap was shown, further high quality intervention studies are necessary for clarifying the effectiveness of Kinaesthetics.

The Kinaesthetics care conception is a nursing approach for patient handling which aims to prevent work-related complaints and diseases. The evidence about the influence of Kinaesthetics on musculoskeletal disorders among persons who handle patients is unclear to date. The purposes of the scoping review are to gain insight into the current state of research regarding the clinical effectiveness of Kinaesthetics (in terms of perceived exertion and musculoskeletal complaints) among persons who handle patients and to identify potential research gaps. A scoping review was conducted. The search strategy comprised a systematic search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL), a hand search, a fast forward search (Web of Science) and a Google scholar-search. The review process was carried out independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed for all studies using three methodological main categories (reporting quality, internal validity, external validity). Thirteen studies with different study designs were included. Seven studies investigated musculoskeletal complaints and nine studies the perceived exertion of nursing staff. Most studies were of very low methodology. Most studies reported a decrease of musculoskeletal complaints and perceived exertion due to Kinaesthetics. In conclusion, there is only little evidence of very low quality about the effectiveness of Kinaesthetics. Out of the studies it could be assumed that Kinaesthetics may decrease the patient handling related perceived exertion and musculoskeletal pain of persons who handle patients. But an overestimation of these results is likely, due to inadequate methodology of included studies. As a result, no clear recommendations about the effectiveness of the Kinaesthetics care conception can be made yet. Since a research gap was shown, further high quality intervention studies are necessary for clarifying the effectiveness of Kinaesthetics.

No description available.

No description available.

Objectives: Heavy lifting in nursing is highly associated with low back pain (LBP) and musculoskeletal injuries (MSI). We aimed to evaluate the impact of mechanical devices used for patient lifting and transferring on risk of LBP and MSI of health care personnel. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The literature search was performed during 1st and 12th September 2021 using 17 electronic databases and handsearching of bibliographies of included studies. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and eight studies with in total 2087 participants in the meta-analysis. Dependent on the study design, risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane RoB 2.0, EPOC, and MINORS. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses assessing Hedges’s g and 95% CI of MSI rate, perceived LBP, and peak compressive spinal load. We calculated prediction intervals and conducted a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Results: All outcomes showed significant, adjusted pooled effect sizes (MSI rate: g = 1.11, 95% CI 0.914–1.299; perceived LBP: g = 1.54, 95% CI −0.016–3.088; peak compressive spinal load: g = 1.04, 95% CI −0.315 to 2.391). True effect sizes in 95% of all comparable populations fell in the following prediction intervals: MSI rate = −1.07-3.28, perceived LBP = −0.522–3.594, and peak compressive spinal load = −15.49 to 17.57. CBA revealed cost-benefit ratios of 1.2 and 3.29 between cumulative total savings and investment costs of intervention. - Conclusions: Prediction intervals confirmed strong true effect sizes for MSI rate and perceived LBP in 95% of all comparable populations but not for peak compressive spinal load. Mechanical lifting and transferring devices displayed a favorable cost-benefit ratio and should be considered for clinical implementation.