ArticlePDF Available

Multifactorial Strategies for Sustaining Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

Authors:

Abstract

Reduction in nursing staff injuries has occurred with the use of an evidence-based approach to safe patient handling and mobility. Parts of the evidence-based practice initiative include having the appropriate equipment, such as mechanical patient-lifting devices, a no-lift policy, and the use of peer coaches. The combination of the implementation of a culture of safety can sustain evidence-based, safe patient-handling practices that reduce patient-handling injuries. Patient-handling programs should include adaptations for an aging nursing workforce. The use of safety checklists in health care can improve communication and compliance with safe patient-handling and mobility policy and program components.
Crit Care Nurs Q
Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 340–344
Copyright c
2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Multifactorial Strategies for
Sustaining Safe Patient
Handling and Mobility
Deborah L. Totzkay, DNP, RN, ACNP-BC, CNOR
Reduction in nursing staff injuries has occurred with the use of an evidence-based approach to
safe patient handling and mobility. Parts of the evidence-based practice initiative include hav-
ing the appropriate equipment, such as mechanical patient-lifting devices, a no-lift policy, and
the use of peer coaches. The combination of the implementation of a culture of safety can sus-
tain evidence-based, safe patient-handling practices that reduce patient-handling injuries. Patient-
handling programs should include adaptations for an aging nursing workforce. The use of safety
checklists in health care can improve communication and compliance with safe patient-handling
and mobility policy and program components. Key words: peer coaches,safe patient handling,
safety checklists,shared governance
PROTECTING PATIENTS and employees
from patient-handling and movement
injuries has proved to be a challenging
endeavor. The use of an organized framework
that includes the following evidence-based
strategies—engineering controls (equip-
ment), administrative controls (policies,
algorithms, and education), and behavioral
controls (unit-based peer coaches)—has
been demonstrated to help sustain a safe
patient-handling initiative.1-5 Three key
elements to successfully sustain a safe
patient-handling and mobility (SPHM) pro-
gram include the following: creating a
culture of safety including administrative
controls, ensuring appropriate and avail-
able equipment (engineering controls), and
having unit-based peer coaches (behavioral
Author Affiliation: Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
The author has disclosed that she has no significant re-
lationships with, or financial interest in, any commer-
cial companies pertaining to this article.
Correspondence: Deborah L. Totzkay, DNP, RN, ACNP-
BC, CNOR, Michigan Medicine, 1500 E. Medical Cen-
ter Dr, SPC 5862, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (dtotzkay@
umich.edu).
DOI: 10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000213
controls) to address and remedy issues as
they occur.
A significant gap exists in current patient-
handling strategies and the use of evidence-
based practices to reduce musculoskeletal
injuries (MSIs) in health care workers. For
example,in 2016, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics determined that registered nurses
incurred 10 290 MSIs, one of the highest
incidences of MSIs among US health care
workers.6For nursing assistants, the rate
of MSIs (19 360) was nearly double that of
registered nurses.6The repetitive nature
of nursing work puts them at high risk for
MSIs.7The most common MSIs seen in health
care workers included injuries or disorders
of the tendons, joints, nerves, muscles, spinal
discs, or cartilage.8
Multiple factors influence the occurrence
of MSIs in nurses. These factors include the
need to lift patients,7and the tendency for
nurses to lift more than the recommended
35 lb of weight.2,9 Ngan and colleagues10
determined that 83% of all employee in-
juries were musculoskeletal. For employees
who provided direct patient care, 59% of the
injuries were attributed to patient-handling
responsibilities such repositioning, transfer-
ring, preventing a patient fall, and assisting
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
340
Multifactorial Strategies for Sustaining Safe Patient Handling and Mobility 341
apatientduringaprocedure.
10 The average
age of nurses in the United States (50 years) is
an additional factor that contributes to MSIs.
As the age of health care workers increased,
so did the rate of MSIs. For instance, for em-
ployees younger than 30 years, the MSI rate
per 100 person-years was 4.6; for employees
60 years or older, the rate increased to 7.4.10
The Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention, National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health established a maximum
amount of compressive force that the hu-
man spine should be exposed to during lift-
ing activities, which should be incorporated
into the ergonomic principles of SPHM.2,11
As compressive force increases, the lumbar
and sacral spines at the L4/L5 and L5/S1
levels become increasingly more vulnerable
to spinal compressive injuries.12 Methodolo-
gies that mitigate patient-handling injuries to
health care workers include mechanical lifts,
lift teams, air-assisted lateral transfer devices,
and minimal-lift patient-handling policies.13
While mechanical lifting devices can re-
duce MSIs from patient-handling activities,
nurse motivation also influences the use of
lifting devices.14 Factors such as peer pres-
sure and physical pain have been shown to
influence nurses when choosing or deciding
to use patient lift equipement.15 Exacerbat-
ing this problem is the increasing number of
obese patients who require lifting, and the
increasing number of older individuals who
require assistance with self-care.16 To gain a
greater understanding of the SPHM initiative
rolled out at a large academic medical cen-
ter, please refer to the article in this issue by
Dickinson, Anton, and Taylor. Once an estab-
lished SPHM program is in place, elements to
address sustainability of the program should
be integrated.
CREATING A CULTURE OF SAFETY
The Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ) has identified several key
features that support a commitment to
safety.1These practices include collaboration
between all levels and disciplines to effec-
tively address patient safety issues; recogni-
tion of high-risk activities within the envi-
ronment; development of processes that pro-
mote safe practices; providing necessary re-
sources to mitigate safety concerns; and sup-
porting a blame-free environment that em-
powers people to report errors or near-misses
without the fear of discipline.
When developing SPHM programs and poli-
cies, input from multidisciplinary stakehold-
ers such as nurses, physicians, physical ther-
apists, ergonomic specialists, and other roles
aid in identifying potential barriers and gaps
to a successful SPHM program. Sokas and
colleagues17 observed that some members of
the health care team, such as nursing aides,
orderlies, or janitors, are frequently over-
looked when considering system improve-
ments for patient and employee safety. The in-
clusion of all frontline health care workers in
the development, implementation, and evalu-
ation of SPHM programs may improve patient
and safety outcomes.
As characterized by the AHRQ, a culture
of safety includes a commitment to iden-
tifying errors and mitigating them before
harm can occur while also implementing
systems that address human factors and en-
able staff to learn from mistakes and prevent
reoccurrences.1The multidisciplinary team
is instrumental in ensuring the sustainability
of appropriate administrative controls, such
as patient-handling policies, algorithms, and
education. The concept of a minimum lift
policy requires administrative support to en-
sure that sufficient and proper patient-lifting
equipment is available to support caregiver
use.18
A culture of safety should encourage em-
ployee empowerment. The essence of em-
powerment can be summarized as individ-
uals’ belief that they can complete their
work in a meaningful manner.19 The influ-
ence of employee empowerment should be
considered when designing and implement-
ing safe patient-handling policies and pro-
grams. When nurses feel empowered in the
workplace, they are more likely to use strate-
gies that empower patients and, ultimately,
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
342 CRITICAL CARE NURSING QUART E R LY/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2018
improve patient outcomes.20 Kanter also the-
orized that, when employees have access
to adequate resources, information, and sup-
port,theyareempoweredtomaximizetheir
ability to fulfill their work responsibilities.19-20
ENGINEERING CONTROLS: HAVING THE
APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT TO MOVE
PATIENTS SAFELY
Engineering controls are designed to miti-
gate work environment risks that contribute
to staff MSIs. Examples of engineering SPHM
controls include ceiling lifts that move pa-
tients vertically to another surface without
requiring manual assistance and air-assisted
lateral transfer devices. Any gaps in the type
or amount of patient-handling equipment
required for the unit should be identified by
the unit leadership. Ready access to appropri-
ate equipment, in good repair, supports the
use of that equipment. The Veterans Health
Administration’s Center for Engineering &
Occupational Safety and Health recommends
conducting ergonomic-site visits of each
unit of a facility.21 This assessment should
include the availability of storage space for
patient-handling equipment; consideration
of patient room sizes and configurations;
and identification of the location of power
outlets and batteries for the equipment.
Instructions for the correct and safe use of
each piece of patient-handling equipment
should be secured to the equipment for ready
reference. By providing adequate and conve-
niently located patient-handling equipment,
accompanied by instructions for use, staff are
more likely to use the equipment.
Adaptations for an aging nursing workforce
must also address patient-handling respon-
sibilities. In their review of the literature,
Phillips and Miltner22 identified fatigue and
repetitive motion injuries as major work haz-
ards for an aging nursing workforce. These
hazards are mitigated during patient-handling
activities by providing appropriate and read-
ily available patient-handling equipment, to
include standardized instructions for use.22
BEHAVIOR CONTROLS: SUPPORT FOR
NURSES TO IMPLEMENT SPHM
Behavioral-based controls include educa-
tion on proper use of patient-handling equip-
mentandSPHMpolicyandtheuseofSPHM
unit peer coaches.18 Peer coaching can be de-
scribed as a nonhierarchical interaction be-
tween 2 health care workers who work in the
same environment and share similar experi-
ences and work responsibilities.23 As applied
to the sustainment of safe patient-handling
programs, the use of peer coaches provides
support and expertise to staff regarding the
correct use of patient-handling equipment
in a supportive and nonjudgmental manner.
This interaction exemplifies the AHRQ rec-
ommendation that development of a blame-
free environment empowers people to re-
port near-misses without fear of discipline.1
Moreover, Cox24 suggested that peer coach-
ing uses cost-effective, in-house expertise that
provides highly relevant support that is read-
ily accessible.
While the implementation of an evidence-
based, safe patient-handling program pro-
vides the foundation for reducing patient-
handling injuries, processes must be
established to provide sufficient support
for maintaining program components. The
use of a shared governance model empowers
employees while also supporting the sus-
tainment of safe patient-handling practices.
Furthermore, Porter-O’Grady25 observed that
shared decision-making models in nursing
provide a framework that supports auton-
omy, organizational influence, and service
excellence.
In collaboration with unit leadership, the
peer coach also shares trends with the staff
regarding injuries attributed to patient han-
dling. For instance, are staff experiencing lost
workdays or modified workdays because of
patient-handling injuries, and if so, what were
the contributing factors? Sharing this infor-
mation with staff on a regular basis helps
emphasize the importance of safe patient-
handling methodologies while also providing
staff with the opportunity to share concerns
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Multifactorial Strategies for Sustaining Safe Patient Handling and Mobility 343
and suggestions for refining patient-handling
practices. Agenda time should be allocated
for the peer coach to present updates re-
garding patient-handling injuries during unit-
based council meetings.
SUMMARY
SPHM programs have been shown to de-
crease direct caregiver and patient injuries
while reducing health care cost (see article
by Adamczyk in this issue). To successfully
sustain an SPHM program, 3 key elements
must be included: a culture of safety includ-
ing administrative controls, engineering con-
trols including appropriate equipment, and
behavioral controls such as education and
unit peer coaches. A great example of the
use of these 3 elements in practice is the
work completed by the Department of Veter-
ans Affairs Tampa Patient Safety Center of In-
quiry. They developed a multifactorial SPHM
program in 2001 that included the evidence-
based use of SPHM unit peer coaches, a
risk assessment to define unit-specific patient-
handling equipment requirements, sufficient
patient-lifting devices appropriate for the pa-
tient population, proper training on patient-
handling equipment, and a minimal-lift SPHM
policy.26
REFERENCES
1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient
Safety Network. Culture of Safety. https://psnet.ahrq
.gov/primers/primer/5/culture-of-safety. Published
June 2017. Accessed March 5, 2018.
2. Waters T, Baptiste A, Short M, Plante-Mallon L, Nel-
son A. Lateral transfer of a patient from a stretcher
to an operating room bed. AORN J. 2011;93(3):334-
339.
3. Martin PJ, Harvey JT, Culvenor JF, Payne WR. Effect
of a nurse back injury prevention intervention on
the rate of injury compensation claims. J Safety Res.
2009;40:13-19.
4. Nelson A, Matz M, Chen F, Siddharthan K, Lloyd J,
Fragala G. Development, and evaluation of a multi-
faceted ergonomics program to prevent injuries asso-
ciated with patient handling tasks. Int J Nurs Stud.
2006;43:717-733.
5. Hignett S. Strategies to reduce musculoskeletal in-
juries associated with handling patients: a systematic
review. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(9):1-8.
6. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Non-
fatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring
days away from work. News release USDL-16-21-
30. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh2.pdf.
Published November 10, 2016. Accessed March 7,
2018.
7. Cohen MH, Green DA, Nelson GG, Leib R, Matz MW.
Patient Handling and Movement Assessments: A
White Paper. Dallas, TX: The Facility Guidelines In-
stitute; 2010:1-144.
8. Beck DM. Using the AORN safe patient handling tool
kit. OR Nurse. 2011;5(5):48-48.
9. National Council of State Boards of Nursing. 2015 Na-
tional Nursing Workforce Study. https://www.ncsbn.
org/workforce.htm. Published April 2016. Accessed
March 7, 2018.
10. Ngan K, Drebit S, Siow S, Yu S, Keen D, Alam-
gir H. Risks and causes of musculoskeletal injuries
among healthcare workers. Occup Med (Lond).
2010;60(5):389-394.
11. Rugs D, Toyinbo P, Patel N, et al. Processes and out-
comes of the Veterans Health Administration Safe Pa-
tient Handling Program: Study Protocol. Eysenbach
G, ed. JMIR Research Protocols. 2013;2(2):e49.
12. Daynard D, Yassi A, Cooper JE, Tate R, Norman R,
Wells R. Biomechanical analysis of peak and cumu-
lative spinal loads during simulated patient-handling
activities: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial
to prevent lift and transfer injury of healthcare work-
ers. Appl Ergon. 2001;32(3):199-214.
13. Department of Labor Occupational Health & Safety
Administration. Safe patient handling programs:
Effectiveness and cost savings. https://www.osha.
gov/dsg/hospitals/documents/3.5_SPH_effectiveness
_508.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2018.
14. Koppelaar E, Knibbe JJ, Miedema HS, Burdorf A. In-
dividual and organisational determinants of use of er-
gonomic devices in healthcare. Occup Eviron Med.
2011;68:659-665.
15. Rickett B, Orbell S, Sheeran P. Social-cognitive deter-
minants of hoist usage among healthcare workers.
J Occup Health Psychol. 2006;11(2):182-196.
16. Occupational Health & Safety Administration.
Safe patient handling programs: Effectiveness and
cost savings. https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hospitals/
documents/3.5 SPH effectiveness 508.pdf.
17. Sokas R, Braun B, Chenven P, et al. Frontline hospital
workers and the worker safety/patient safety nexus.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safe. 2013;39(4):185-192.
18. Nelson A, Baptiste AS. Update on evidence-based
practices for safe patient handling and movement.
J Orthop Nurs. 2006;25(6):366-379.
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
344 CRITICAL CARE NURSING QUART E R LY/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2018
19. Spence-Laschinger HK, Gilbert S, Smith LM, Leslie
K. Towards a comprehensive theory of nurse/patient
empowerment: applying Kanter’s empowerment the-
ory to patient care. JNursMgt. 2010;18(1):
4-13.
20. Kanter RM. Men and Women of the Corporation.
New York, NY: Basic Books; 1977.
21. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health
Administration. Safe patient handling. https://www.
publichealth.va.gov/employeehealth/patient-handling
/index.asp. Published 2016. Accessed March 10,
2018.
22. Phillips JA, Miltner R. Work hazards for an aging
workforce. J Nurs Manag. 2015;23(6):803-812.
23. Waddell DL, Dunn N. Peer coaching: the next step in
staff development. JContinEducNurs. 2005;36(2):
84-89.
24. Cox E. Individual and organizational trust in a recip-
rocal peer coaching context. J Mentoring Coaching.
2015;20(3):1-25.
25. Porter-O’Grady T. Researching shared governance: a
futility of focus. JNursAdm. 2003;33(4):251-252.
26. Veterans Health Administration and Department of
Defense. Safe patient handling and mobility guide-
book. Department of Veterans Affairs Tampa Patient
Safety Center of Inquiry. http://www.tampavaref.org/
safe-patient-handling.htm. Updated January 2016.
Accessed March 10, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
... Ample evidence suggests that the implementation of a Safe Patient Handling and Motility program (SPHM) reduces injury and absenteeism rates. A SPHM involves a structured framework that incorporates the following evidence-based tactics: engineering controls (patient lift equipment), administrative controls (policies, algorithms, and education), and behavioral controls (unit-based peer coaches) [6]. A patient lift is a mechanical device specially designed to lift and transfer patients who need assistance with their mobility. ...
... Behavioral and cultural factors emerged as important facilitators (cited 24 times) for lifts use. Safety culture (climate) and workers' safety awareness, including the perceived risk of self-injury, versus the acceptance of injury as "part of the job" [6,21,24,30,36,41,43,48,53,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66] were the most mentioned. Worker empowerment [6,26,38,43] was revealed to be an important determinant as well. ...
... Safety culture (climate) and workers' safety awareness, including the perceived risk of self-injury, versus the acceptance of injury as "part of the job" [6,21,24,30,36,41,43,48,53,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66] were the most mentioned. Worker empowerment [6,26,38,43] was revealed to be an important determinant as well. Equipment-related factors were less commonly referred to as facilitators (cited 16 times): these included the availability and sufficient number of devices [10,25,28,43,50,52,63,64], the accessibility and storage location of devices [10,25,28,52,64,67], and the availability of equipment supplies [10,47]. ...
Article
Full-text available
(1) Background: Patient lifts are evidence-based engineering controls used in Safe Patient Handling Programs to assist healthcare workers in moving patients. They have been shown to be beneficial for both healthcare workers and patients. However, these devices are not consistently used. This review aims to determine the scope of the literature and examine the barriers and facilitators for the use of patient lifts by healthcare workers, on a global level. (2) Methods: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Global Health (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science—Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL, Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions, PAIS Index (Proquest), and the gray literature were reviewed. Duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, full texts were assessed, and the quality of the studies were checked. The analysis was carried out qualitatively using thematic analysis. (3) Results: A total of 57 articles were included in this review. Most studies (71.9%) originated in the US alone, and none originated in low- and middle-income countries. The majority were quantitative studies and were conducted in acute care hospitals. The main identified barriers were equipment-related (e.g., time constraints, device unavailability, and inconvenient storage), followed by cultural and behavioral factors (peer pressure, resistance to change, and occupational socialization), followed by organizational factors (staff shortage and workload). The main identified facilitators were mostly organizational factors (leadership support, minimal lift policy, standardized protocols), followed by cultural and behavioral factors (safety culture and worker’s empowerment), then equipment-related factors (device availability and accessibility). Patient- and worker-related factors were the least mentioned. (4) Conclusion: There is a complex interplay of organizational, equipment-related, and cultural factors shaping the use of lifts by healthcare workers. A multifaceted approach that focuses on enhancing organizational support, fostering a robust safety culture, and ensuring equipment availability is warranted.
... Similarly, Brewer et al. [16] found that strains or sprains, including back injuries, were positively associated with NLRNs' turnover. Such unexpected shock can be prevented with the use of mechanical patient-lifting devices and "no lift" policies [57]. Prevention programs and strategies for physical and psychosocial problems due to nursing work should be developed and implemented to target NLRNs' retention. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for nursing care increased, making the retention of nurses even more important. Among staff nurses, it is reported that the turnover rate of newly licensed registered nurses is higher. However, no systematic reviews have focused on the factors that influence newly licensed registered nurses’ turnover. Additionally, because newly licensed registered nurses are a major source of the supply of nurses, it is critical to retain them to meet patient needs. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically synthesize the factors contributing to the actual turnover of newly licensed registered nurses working in acute care hospitals. Methods CINAHL, Cochrane Library, DBpia, EBSCO, PubMed, PsycINFO, RISS, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2000 and June 2021. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results Ten articles from 9029 were included in this review. All studies used a longitudinal design. The annual turnover rates of newly licensed registered nurses ranged from 12 to 25%. Health status, including sleep and healthy lifestyles, were significant factors affecting turnover. Most studies focused on work environment factors, and emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, peer support, and intent to leave, were significantly associated with newly licensed registered nurses’ turnover. Small hospitals located in nonmetropolitan areas were at risk of high turnover of newly licensed registered nurses. Conclusions Turnover is inevitable in the process of employment, but high turnover can be prevented. Through reviewing ten articles, significant contributing factors for newly licensed registered nurses’ turnover included personal factors of health status; work environment factors of physical exhaustion, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, occupational injuries, income, intent to stay, job satisfaction, and peer support; and hospital factors of hospital size, location, and unionization. Most existing studies focus on work environment factors, which reflects the significance of fostering healthy work conditions to prevent high turnover. These findings can be used to develop strategies and policies for work environment to reduce high turnover of newly licensed registered nurses, and support high-risk groups, such as small hospitals located in nonmetropolitan areas with high levels of nurses’ turnover.
... As atividades relacionadas com a mobilização manual de cargas podem resultar numa série de distúrbios músculo-esqueléticos. As lesões músculo-dos dados com a implementação da estratégia de "After Action Review" Embora a implementação de um programa forneça a base para reduzir as lesões, os processos devem ser estabelecidos para fornecer apoio suficiente para manter os componentes do programa14 . O programa deve ser alicerçado num clima de segurança organizacional positivo, numa cultura orientada para as pessoas e para as práticas ergonômicas 8 . ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: to describe the implementation of a multifactorial program with the objective of preventing work-related musculoskeletal injuries of health professionals. Method: descriptive, longitudinal, exploratory and research-action type study, for a period of 18 months, between 2018 and 2019. The sample consisted of 149 professionals: 73 nurses and 76 nursing assistants. Results: the intervention included the following phases: diagnosis with the consequent ergonomic intervention, creation of working groups to implement decision algorithms, introduction of mechanical equipment to assist mobilization and adaptation of organizational policies. Through this path it was possible to observe a decrease in days lost due to patient mobilization and manual load handling. Conclusion: the systemic and integrating component of a multifactorial intervention program, in health professionals, has advantages, which persist in practice far beyond programs that only use training on patient mobilization. Descriptors: Health Personnel; Occupational Risks; Nursing; Work Conditions.
Article
Full-text available
Health care workers, such as nurses, nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants, who manually move patients, are consistently listed in the top professions for musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These MSIs are typically caused by high-risk patient caregiving activities. In 2008, a safe patient handling (SPH) program was implemented in all 153 Veterans Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs) throughout the United States to reduce patient handling injuries. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the effects associated with the national implementation of a comprehensive SPH program. The primary objectives of the research were to determine the effectiveness of the SPH program in improving direct care nursing outcomes and to provide a context for understanding variations in program results across sites over time. Secondary objectives of the present research were to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in reducing direct and indirect costs associated with patient handling, to explore the potential mediating and moderating mechanisms, and to identify unintended consequences of implementing the program. This 3-year longitudinal study used mixed methods of data collection at 6- to 9-month intervals. The analyses will include data from surveys, administrative databases, individual and focus group interviews, and nonparticipant observations. For this study, a 3-tiered measurement plan was used. For Tier 1, the unit of analysis was the facility, the data source was the facility coordinator or administrative data, and all 153 VAMCs participated. For Tier 2, frontline caregivers and program peer leaders at 17 facilities each completed different surveys. For Tier 3, six facilities completed qualitative site visits, which included individual interviews, focus groups, and nonparticipant observations. Multiple regression models were proposed to test the effects of SPH components on nursing outcomes related to patient handling. Content analysis and constant comparative analysis were proposed for qualitative data analysis to understand the context of implementation and to triangulate quantitative data. All three tiers of data for this study have been collected. We are now in the analyses and writing phase of the project, with the possibility for extraction of additional administrative data. The focus of this paper is to describe the SPH program, its evaluation study design, and its data collection procedures. This study evaluates the effects associated with the national implementation of a comprehensive SPH program that was implemented in all 153 VAMCs throughout the United States to reduce patient handling injuries. To our knowledge, this is the largest evaluation of an SPH program in the United States. A major strength of this observational study design is that all VAMCs implemented the program and were included in Tier 1 of the study; therefore, population sampling bias is not a concern. Although the design lacks a comparison group for testing program effects, this longitudinal field study design allows for capturing program dose-response effects within a naturalistic context. Implementation of the VA-wide SPH program afforded the opportunity for rigorous evaluation in a naturalistic context. Findings will guide VA operations for policy and decision making about resources, and will be useful for health care, in general, outside of the VA, in implementation and impact of an SPH program.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores organizational and peer dynamics that impact the potential for productive, trusting peer relationships. An in-depth phenomenological study of five peer coaching dyads was undertaken to examine the establishment and maintenance of peer coaching. Joint interviews were used to promote co-construction of responses. Findings suggested that formation of trust is impacted by values-based attachment, confidentiality, and the capacity of peers to make themselves vulnerable. Individual bonds are important at the start of coaching, but trust is further strengthened through contracting and reciprocity within the relationship itself and by an open culture within the organization. Organizational culture was found to influence trust and the need for a combination of benign organizational support, transparency, and non-intervention was seen as vital.
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to identify individual and organisational determinants associated with the use of ergonomic devices during patient handling activities. This cross-sectional study was carried out in 19 nursing homes and 19 hospitals. The use of ergonomic devices was assessed through real-time observations in the workplace. Individual barriers to ergonomic device use were identified by structured interviews with nurses and organisational barriers were identified using questionnaires completed by supervisors and managers. Multivariate logistic analysis with generalised estimating equations for repeated measurement was used to estimate determinants of ergonomic device use. 247 nurses performed 670 patient handling activities that required the use of an ergonomic device. Ergonomic devices were used 68% of the times they were deemed necessary in nursing homes and 59% in hospitals. Determinants of lifting device use were nurses' motivation (OR 1.96), the presence of back complaints in the past 12months (OR 1.77) and the inclusion in care protocols of strict guidance on the required use of ergonomic devices (OR 2.49). The organisational factors convenience and easily accessible, management support and supportive management climate were associated with these determinants. No associations were found with other ergonomic devices. The use of lifting devices was higher in nursing homes than in hospitals. Individual and organisational factors seem to play a substantial role in the successful implementation of lifting devices in healthcare.
Article
AimTo discuss selected work hazards and safety concerns for aging nurses. Background Greater numbers of older nurses remain in the workforce. Projections suggest that one-third of the nursing workforce will be over age 50 years by 2015. Employers will struggle to find ways to protect the health and safety of their aging workforce and prevent a massive loss of intellectual and human resources when these experienced nurses exit the workforce. EvaluationReview of recent relevant literature in English language journals. Key issuesRepetitive motion injuries, fatigue and slips, trips and falls are three major work hazards older nurses face. We discuss several factors for each hazard, including: the normal physiological aging effects of diminished strength, hearing and vision; workplace variables of work schedules, noise and clutter; and personal characteristics of sleep disturbances, overexertion and fatigue. Conclusions Inconclusive evidence exists to guide best practices for designing safe workplace environments and shift patterns for nursing work. Implications for nursing managementThere are at least two areas administrators can reduce work hazards for older workers: (1) modification of the workplace, and (2) creating the infrastructure to support the aging workforce to encourage healthy behaviours.
Article
A day-long workshop was held in October 2012 to explore whether and how frontline health care workers affect patient safety and how they experience safety in their work settings. This report provides actions for hospitals to take in addressing the interrelated issues of patient safety and worker safety.
Article
Moving patients can result in injuries to patients and staff members. Lateral patient transfers from a stretcher to an OR bed pose a high risk for musculoskeletal disorders, including lower back, shoulder, and neck injuries for perioperative personnel. AORN Ergonomic Tool 1: Lateral Transfer of a Patient from a Stretcher to an OR Bed helps perioperative staff members determine best practices for safe lateral patient transfers. Safe moving of the patient is determined by the starting and ending position required and the patient's weight. Current ergonomic safety concepts and scientific evidence regarding weight limits help to determine how many caregivers are needed to safely move patients and whether mechanical assistance is needed during lateral transfers.