A Tool to Compare All Patient Handling Interventions

Abstract

• This is a conference paper. ABSTRACTPatient handling intervention strategies are many and varied. The focus of interventions has primarily been on the health, safety and welfare of care givers. Data from 4 EU focus groups and 2 world-wide expert panels were used to evaluate whether other types of outcomes were perceived as having relative importance. Qualitative and quantitative analysis showed that organisational and patient outcomes were also highly rated by the participants. The data showed 12 outcomes as being of the highest priority with good agreement between the 4 EU sources (Kendall's Concordance significant at 0.005). In parallel, a systematic analysis of patient handling intervention literature was considered to evaluate the qualities of each study. Using the 12 most important outcomes from the initial study and the most appropriate and accessible measurement tools from the literature analysis, the Intervention Evaluation Tool (IET) is proposed. The IET is a single set of measurements that can be used for evaluating all organisational and individual patient handling interventions. The IET has been trialled at 2 sites in 4 EU countries.

A systematic review of observational instruments used to assess nurses' skills in patient mobilisation

“…This result reflects the focus in this research area. Fray and Hignett () noted that 77% of published studies on patient handling used staff outcome, while less than 8% represented patient outcome.…”

Optimizing aged care environments to promote resident functional mobility and reduce staff injury risk

“…At the same time, aged care workers who provide mobility assistance are exposed to high risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) associated with performance of these manual handling of people (MHP) tasks (Caponecchia et al, 2020;BLS, 2021). Risk management strategies implemented to address these risks have tended to focus on staff outcomes with limited consideration of outcomes for the resident such as promoting mobility (Fray, 2010;Taylor et al, 2011).…”

“…However, systematic use of these strategies for the dual benefits of reducing staff injury risk exposure and facilitating resident functional mobility (Figure 1), have not been fully realized (Coman and Caponecchia, 2015;Coman et al, 2018). The need to consider other MHP intervention outcomes, in addition to those associated with reducing MSD injury risk is emerging as a key issue within the MHP field (Pellatt, 2005;Nelson et al, 2008;Fray, 2010;Fray and Hignett, 2010;Fray and Hignett, 2010;Taylor et al, 2011;Taylor et al, 2014).…”

“…Various methods have been applied within MHP risk management for identifying hazards associated with MHP tasks, assessing risks and evaluating interventions. These comprise a range of "patient handling assessment tools" that focus at different levels of the MHP interaction, including a focus on aspects of the individual patient (such as level of dependency); aspects of the work environment (e.g., furniture, architectural features); the individual nurse/care worker (such as skill and task performance); the organisation (e.g., safety management systems); or combinations of these elements (Fray, 2010;Coman et al, 2018).…”

“…Provision of care extends to clinical care, personal care (e.g., personal assistance with bathing/toileting) and ensuring the resident’s environment supports their independence. Finding ways to address these competing demands–providing appropriate levels of care and protecting staff from injury–is a key challenge in the aged care sector ( Fray and Hignett, 2010 ; Taylor et al, 2011 ).…”