Literature DB >> 1829037

A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed.

A Garg1, B Owen, D Beller, J Banaag.   

Abstract

A laboratory study was conducted in an effort to reduce back stress for nursing personnel while performing the patient handling tasks of transferring the patient from bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. These patient handling tasks were studied using five manual techniques and three hoist-assisted techniques. The manual techniques involved one-person and two-person transfers. One manual technique involved a two-person lift of the patient under the arms; the others used a rocking and pulling action and included the use of assistive devices (a gait belt using a two-person transfer, a walking belt with handles using a one-person and a two-person transfer, and a patient handling sling with cutout areas to allow for a hand grip (Medesign) for a one-person transfer). The three mechanical hoists were Hoyer, Trans-Aid and Ambulift. Six female nursing students with prior patient transfer experience served both as nurses and as passive patients. Static biomechanical evaluation showed that pulling techniques, as compared to lifting the patient, required significantly lower hand forces and produced significantly lower erector spinae and compressive forces at the L5/S1 disc (P greater than or equal to 0.01). Shear force, trunk moments and the percentage of females who were capable of performing the transfers (based on static strength simulation) also favoured pulling methods. Perceived stress ratings for the shoulder, upper back, lower back and whole body were lower for pulling methods than those for lifting the patient (P less than or equal to 0.01). Patients found the pulling techniques, with the exception of when using the gait belt, felt more comfortable and more secure than the lifting method (P less than or equal to 0.01). However, a number of subjects believed that the patient handling sling (Medesign) and the walking belt with one person making the transfer would not work for those patients who could not bear weight and those who were heavy, contracted or combative. A walking belt with two persons was the preferred manual method. Two out of three hoists (Hoyer lift and Trans-Aid) were perceived by the nurses to be as physically stressful as manual methods. Patients found these two hoists to be more uncomfortable and felt less secure than with three of the five manual methods (one- and two-person walking belts and Medesign). Ambulift was found to be the least stressful, the most comfortable, and the most secure among all eight methods. Pulling techniques and hoists took significantly longer amounts of time to make the transfer than manually lifting the patient (P less than or equal to 0.01). The two-person walking belt using a pulling technique and Ambulift are recommended for transferring patients from bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. A large-scale field study is needed to verify these recommendations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1829037     DOI: 10.1080/00140139108967314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  5 in total

1.  Intensive education combined with low tech ergonomic intervention does not prevent low back pain in nurses.

Authors:  J Hartvigsen; S Lauritzen; S Lings; T Lauritzen
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Associations of self estimated workloads with musculoskeletal symptoms among hospital nurses.

Authors:  S Ando; Y Ono; M Shimaoka; S Hiruta; Y Hattori; F Hori; Y Takeuchi
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Evidence-Based Strategies for Preserving Mobility for Elderly and Aging Manual Wheelchair Users.

Authors:  Philip S Requejo; Jan Furumasu; Sara J Mulroy
Journal:  Top Geriatr Rehabil       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

4.  Individual and organisational determinants of use of ergonomic devices in healthcare.

Authors:  E Koppelaar; J J Knibbe; H S Miedema; A Burdorf
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 4.402

5.  Study protocol title: a prospective cohort study of low back pain.

Authors:  Arun Garg; Kurt T Hegmann; J Steven Moore; Jay Kapellusch; Matthew S Thiese; Sruthi Boda; Parag Bhoyr; Donald Bloswick; Andrew Merryweather; Richard Sesek; Gwen Deckow-Schaefer; James Foster; Eric Wood; Xiaoming Sheng; Richard Holubkov
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 2.362

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.