Effectiveness of overhead lifting devices in reducing the risk of injury to care staff in extended care facilities

Abstract

Patient and/or resident handling is a major cause of injury to healthcare workers. The effectiveness of an overhead ceiling lift programme at mitigating the risk of injury from resident handling was evaluated by comparing injury data and staff perceptions before and after implementation of the programme, and by comparison with a similar unit that did not implement an overhead ceiling lift programme. A questionnaire was used to assess perceived risk of injury and discomfort, preferred resident handling methods, frequency of performing designated resident handling tasks, perceived physical demands, work organization, and staff satisfaction. Staff preferred overhead ceiling lifts to other methods of transfer (manual or floor lifts) when lifting or transferring residents. A significant reduction was observed in the perceived risk of injury and discomfort to the neck, shoulders, back, hands, and arms of care staff. Compensation costs due to lifting and transferring tasks were reduced by 68% for the intervention unit and increased by 68% for the comparison unit. Overhead ceiling lifts were not beneficial in reducing the perceived risk of injury, pain or discomfort, or compensation costs when used to reposition residents. The study demonstrated an overall cost-savings associated with the installation of the overhead lifts, and highlighted areas for further improvement.

Musculoskeletal pain among critical-care nurses by availability and use of patient lifting equipment: An analysis of cross-sectional survey data

“…Biomechanical and lift intervention studies have shown significant reductions in biomechanical stress, musculoskeletal discomfort, injury rates, and workers compensation costs (Engst et al, 2005;Evanoff et al, 2003;Li et al, 2004;Yassi et al, 2001;Zhuang et al, 2000). Eliminating risky manual lifting and promoting the use of adequate lifting equipment have become a key component of safe patient handling policies internationally (American Nurses Association, 2012b;Australian Nursing Federation, 2012;Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, 2006).…”

A systematic review of occupational safety and health business cases

“…Six articles reported on three studies twice so we included each study only once which left us with 18 articles (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28). In one article, four cases were reported, in another three cases, and in one report, three cases were reported, resulting in 26 cases for use in the review (9,11,24,26,(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42) We excluded cases that: (i) did not concern occupational health but general health interventions such as case studies of influenza vaccination (43)(44)(45)(46)(47); (ii) did not include costs and benefits in monetary terms (48); (iii) did not include productivity measures (49); (iv) did not include the costs of the intervention (50); (v) were economic models only (51); or (vi) had calculated costs and benefits relative only to production (52).…”

“…In one case, the pre-intervention trend was assumed to continue after the intervention and the difference between the extrapolated pre-intervention trend and the measured value was taken as the benefit of the intervention (26). In two other studies, an additional assumption was made that the avoided indirect costs, such as avoided turnover and training of new personnel, would be equal to the avoided direct costs from workers' compensation claims (29,32).…”

“…In the controlled studies, the effect, costs, and benefits of the intervention were measured as those in the intervention group minus those in the control group (32,33,39). However, in one study, we had to recalculate the outcomes because the authors used a before-after comparison in the intervention group only (32).…”

Musculoskeletal injuries among hospital patient care staff before and after implementation of patient lift and transfer equipment

“…A number of barriers to the use of lift equipment have been described (18)(19)(20); studies suggest mechanical patient lifts are not regularly used in patient care tasks (1,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25). Although equipment effectiveness has been demonstrated in the long-term care setting (23,(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32), results may not be generalizable to the acute care setting, which is characterized by more extensive patient turnover, frequent and abrupt changes to patient acuity, a variety of patient…”