A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed
- PMID: 1829037
- DOI: 10.1080/00140139108967314
A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed
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.
Similar articles
-
A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: wheelchair to shower chair and shower chair to wheelchair.Ergonomics. 1991 Apr;34(4):407-19. doi: 10.1080/00140139108967325. Ergonomics. 1991. PMID: 1860461
-
Reducing back stress to nursing personnel: an ergonomic intervention in a nursing home.Ergonomics. 1992 Nov;35(11):1353-75. doi: 10.1080/00140139208967398. Ergonomics. 1992. PMID: 1425566
-
An ergonomic evaluation of nursing assistants' job in a nursing home.Ergonomics. 1992 Sep;35(9):979-95. doi: 10.1080/00140139208967377. Ergonomics. 1992. PMID: 1387079
-
Prevention of disabling back injuries in nurses by the use of mechanical patient lift systems.J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2004;14(6):521-33. doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v14.i6.70. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2004. PMID: 15698378 Review.
-
Manual materials handling and the biomechanical basis for prevention of low-back pain in industry--an overview.Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1987 Dec;48(12):989-96. doi: 10.1080/15298668791385967. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1987. PMID: 2963515 Review.
Cited by
-
Effectiveness of Safe Patient Handling Equipment and Techniques: A Review of Biomechanical Studies.Hum Factors. 2024 Oct;66(10):2283-2322. doi: 10.1177/00187208231211842. Epub 2023 Nov 10. Hum Factors. 2024. PMID: 37947221 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Manual Handling in Aged Care: Impact of Environment-related Interventions on Mobility.Saf Health Work. 2018 Dec;9(4):372-380. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2018.02.003. Epub 2018 Mar 6. Saf Health Work. 2018. PMID: 30559984 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Intensive education combined with low tech ergonomic intervention does not prevent low back pain in nurses.Occup Environ Med. 2005 Jan;62(1):13-7. doi: 10.1136/oem.2003.010843. Occup Environ Med. 2005. PMID: 15613603 Free PMC article.
-
Individual and organisational determinants of use of ergonomic devices in healthcare.Occup Environ Med. 2011 Sep;68(9):659-65. doi: 10.1136/oem.2010.055939. Epub 2010 Nov 23. Occup Environ Med. 2011. PMID: 21098827 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Lift-Assist Device Regarding Caregiver Posture and Muscle Load for Transferring Tasks.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jan 9;20(2):1174. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021174. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023. PMID: 36673934 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical