Evaluation of direct workers' compensation costs for musculoskeletal injuries surrounding interventions to reduce patient lifting
Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Occupational and environmental medicine
(Impact Factor: 3.27).
12/2011; 69(5):367-72. DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2011-100107
We evaluated costs for workers' compensation (WC) injuries of a musculoskeletal (MS) nature in a large tertiary care hospital and an affiliated community hospital in the 13 years surrounding an institution-wide shift to a 'minimal manual patient-lifting environment' supported with inpatient mechanical lift equipment.
Negative binomial regression was used to model adjusted and discounted payment rates based on full-time equivalents (FTEs), and payment ratios. The risk of higher cost was assessed based on type of injury (patient-handling vs non-patient-handling), hospital, job, age, gender, institutional tenure and time since the implementation of lift equipment. Lagging was used to evaluate the latency of the intervention effect.
Patient-handling injuries (n=1543) were responsible for 72% of MS injuries and 53% of compensation costs among patient care staff. Mean costs per claim were 5 times higher for those over age 45 than those <25 years of age. Physical and occupational therapy aides had the highest cost rates ($578/FTE) followed by nursing aides ($347/FTE) and patient transporters ($185/FTE). There was an immediate, marked decline in mean costs per claim and costs per FTE following the policy change and delivery of lift equipment.
The observed patterns of changes in cost likely reflect the effects of activities other than use of lift equipment, including targeted efforts to close WC claims and an almost simultaneous policy that shifted cost responsibility to the budgets of managers on individual units. Inference was facilitated through the use of longitudinal data on the workgroups and an internal injury comparison.
Available from: Jennifer Legge
- "Despite their widespread use, according to a number of recent reviews13–16 there is little evidence to support manual handling training and assistive devices, such as back supports and lifting equipment, as an effective control measure for reducing manual handling injuries in the workplace. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Musculoskeletal injuries account for the largest proportion of workplace injuries. In an attempt to predict, and subsequently manage, the risk of sprains and strains in the workplace, employers are turning to pre-employment screening. Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are increasing in popularity as a tool for pre-employment screening despite limited published evidence for their validity in healthy working populations.
This narrative review will present an overview of the state of the evidence for pre-employment functional testing, propose a framework for decision-making to determine the suitability of assessment tools, and discuss the role and potential ethical challenges for physiotherapists conducting pre-employment functional testing.
Much of the evidence surrounding the validity of functional testing is in the context of the injured worker and prediction of return to work. In healthy populations, FCE components, such as aerobic fitness and manual handling activities, have demonstrated predictability of workplace injury in a small number of studies. This predictability improves when workers' performance is compared with the job demands. This job-specific approach is also required to meet anti-discrimination requirements. There are a number of practical limitations to functional testing, although these are not limited to the pre-employment domain. Physiotherapists need to have a clear understanding of the legal requirements and potential ethical challenges that they may face when conducting pre-employment functional assessments (PEFAs).
Further research is needed into the efficacy of pre-employment testing for workplace injury prevention. Physiotherapists and PEFAs are just one part of a holistic approach to workplace injury prevention.
Physical Therapy Reviews 10/2013; 18(5):350-357. DOI:10.1179/1743288X13Y.0000000101
Available from: John M Dement
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Using an observational research design and robust surveillance data, we evaluated rates of musculoskeletal (MS) injuries, days away from work, and restricted work days among patient care staff at a medical center and community hospital in the United States over 13 years, during which time a "minimal manual lift" policy and mechanical lift equipment were implemented. METHODS: Workers' compensation claims data were linked to human resources data to define outcomes of interest and person-time at risk to calculate rates. Poisson and negative binomial regression with lagging were used to compare outcome rates in different windows of time surrounding the intervention. Patterns of MS injuries associated with patient-handling were contrasted to patterns of other MS injuries that would not be affected by the use of mechanical lift equipment. RESULTS: At the medical center, no change in the patient-handling MS injury rate followed the intervention. A 44% decrease was observed at the community hospital. At both hospitals, the rate of days away declined immediately - before it was reasonable for the intervention to have been adopted. CONCLUSIONS: Institutional-level changes at the time of the intervention likely influenced observed results with findings only partially consistent with an intervention effect. Observational studies can be useful in assessing effectiveness of safety interventions in complex work environments. Such studies should consider the process of intervention implementation, the time needed for intervention adoption, and the dynamic nature of work environments.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 03/2012; 39(1). DOI:10.5271/sjweh.3288 · 3.45 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
This study evaluates the influence of individual and organisational factors on nurses' behaviour to use lifting devices in healthcare.
Interviews among nurses were conducted to collect individual characteristics and to establish their behaviour regarding lifting devices use. Organisational factors were collected by questionnaires and walk-through-surveys, comprising technical facilities, organisation of care, and management-efforts. Generalised-Estimating-Equations for repeated measurements were used to estimate determinants of nurses' behaviour.
Important determinants of nurses' behaviour to use lifting devices were knowledge of workplace procedures (OR = 5.85), strict guidance on required lifting devices use (OR = 2.91), and sufficient lifting devices (OR = 1.92). Management-support and supportive-management-climate were associated with these determinants.
Since nurses' behaviour to use lifting devices is influenced by factors at different levels, studies in ergonomics should consider how multi-level factors impact each other. An integral approach, addressing individual and organisational levels, is necessary to facilitate appropriate implementation of ergonomic interventions, like lifting devices.
Applied ergonomics 12/2012; 44(4). DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.005 · 2.02 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.