Elsevier

Applied Ergonomics

Volume 37, Issue 3, May 2006, Pages 377-385
Applied Ergonomics

Evaluation of the effectiveness of portable ceiling lifts in a new long-term care facility

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.05.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Researchers and health and safety practitioners have advocated replacing manual patient handling techniques with ceiling lifts in long-term care. The majority of these studies have only evaluated the impact of fixed ceiling lifts on extended care residents where the ratio of ceiling lifts to resident beds is one to one. This pre–post intervention study assesses the effectiveness of portable ceiling lifts in a new multi-level care facility on risk of patient handling injuries where the ratio of ceiling lifts to resident beds is one to six.

Results indicated that staff perceived they were at significantly (p<0.05) less risk of injury when using ceiling lifts compared to manual methods. Seventy-five percent of staff preferred to use the ceiling lifts over any other method for lifting and transferring residents. Compensation costs due to patient handling decreased in the intervention facility, with a 241% increase in the comparison facility. This study demonstrates that incorporating ceiling lifts into the design of a new multi-level care facility reduced patient handling injuries and decreased perceived risk of injury among care staff.

Introduction

Musculoskeletal injuries (MSI) are a major source of work-related disability within the healthcare industry (Choi et al., 1996; Fragala, 2004; Wasiak et al., 2004). Higher incidence rates of MSI have been observed in healthcare workers compared to the general population (Fuortes et al., 1994; Pheasant and Stubbs, 1992) and to other occupational groups (Ono et al., 1995). In Canada, the evidence is similar (Koehoorn et al., 2002; Yassi et al., 2002) with the injury rate for the healthcare sector from 1996 to 2000 higher than the average for all other industries combined (Engst et al., 2004). In 2001, the injury rate per 100 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers for the Acute and Long-term care sectors in British Columbia (BC) were 6.4 and 10.7, respectively, while the injury rate for all other industries in BC was 3.7 (Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, 2002).

Owen (2004) summarizes the evidence that back injuries are a major problem for those nurses providing direct patient care. Nurses with frequent and direct physical contact with patients have been shown to have a higher incidence of back injuries than those who work with patients infrequently (Jensen, 1990), and nurses who have been injured commonly report patient handling as a major cause of their injury (Bork et al., 1996; Garg and Owen, 1992b; Hollingdale and Warin, 1997; Knibbe and Friele, 1996; Leighton and Reilly, 1995; Ono et al., 1995; Ostry et al., 2003; Smedley et al., 1995; Yassi et al., 1995).

Manual patient handling such as lifting and transfer of patients/residents from one destination to another has been identified as a high-risk activity (Garg et al., 1992c; Hollingdale and Warin, 1997; Nelson and Fragala, 2004). The risk on the musculoskeletal system is due to the weight or required force to lift/transfer or reposition a patient/resident, the horizontal and vertical location of the patient/resident relative to the healthcare worker, the frequency, duration and orientation of lifting, stability of the patient, workplace geometry, and environment (Garg and Moore, 1992a; Marras et al., 1995, Marras et al., 1999; Waters et al., 1993). The potential for injury is not only due to overcoming a heavy patient/resident's body weight, but is further compounded by the patient's size, shape, deformities, level of fatigue, cognitive functioning, cooperation as well as the worker's physical impairments or lower limb function, balance, and coordination (Garg et al., 1992c; Lloyd, 2004). Cognitively impaired patients/residents can be unpredictable and may suddenly become combative, resist efforts, or go limp during a transfer, causing a nurse to lose balance and/or make sudden unexpected movements (Lloyd, 2004). These sudden unexpected movements and resultant muscular contractions can cause high muscular forces within the erector spinae of approximately 145–187% of one's Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) (Anderson, 2001) leading to fatigue and possible failure of the muscles surrounding the lumbar spine (de Looze et al., 1998; Dempsey, 1998; McGill, 2002).

Reducing patient handling injuries can result in considerable economic benefits to employers and prevent significant pain and suffering for workers (de Looze et al., 1998; Gorelick et al., 2003). Many traditional interventions to this problem based on teaching workers proper body mechanics while manual lifting, have not yielded widespread success in reducing injury rates (Fragala, 2004; Keir and MacDonell, 2004). In recent years, ceiling mounted lifting devices have been increasingly promoted as an alternative to conventional floor lifts for lifting and transferring patients from one location to another, and repositioning patients in bed (Engst et al., 2003, Engst et al., 2004, Engst et al., 2005; Gamble, 1998; Holliday et al., 1994; Villeneuve, 1998; Yassi et al., 2001). Ceiling lifts can reduce many of the variables related to unexpected patient/resident behaviors and create a safer situation for healthcare workers (Daynard et al., 2001; Fragala, 2004).

Engst et al. (2003) describe a ceiling lift as consisting of a ceiling mounted track, an electric motor, and a patient sling used to lift and transfer, and reposition patients/residents (Fig. 1). One or more staff members are capable of placing a sling on a patient/resident and hooking them onto the ceiling lift. Ceiling tracks can be configured in numerous arrangements to accommodate many beds within a single room, and possibly multiple rooms. There is generally two different types of ceiling lift motors: portable and fixed. Portable motors are easily attached and detached from the ceiling lift tracks. In a study of overhead ceiling devices in an extended care unit of a hospital, Engst et al. (2005) found a greater proportion of nursing staff used ceiling lifts to lift and transfer residents from bed to chair than manually or with mechanical floor lifts. In addition, perceptions of pain, discomfort and risk of injury were significantly decreased when lifting and transferring with the ceiling lift. It can be seen that ceiling lifts have solved many of the problems associated with mechanical lifts since they require minimal physical effort to move and maneuver, are always available for use since they are stored within a patients’/resident's room, and require less space to operate (Engst et al., 2005). Mechanical lifting devices of any type however have been shown to be far safer for both nurses and patients, than manual methods (Lloyd, 2004; Zhang et al., 2000).

In 2000, the Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare (OHSAH) in BC, an agency jointly governed by union and employer representatives dedicated to identifying and sharing best practices (Yassi et al., 2002) to reduce injuries and illnesses in healthcare workers, examined the effectiveness of installing ceiling lifts within the design of a new long-term care facility. The objectives of this study were to examine the impact of installing ceiling lifts in a new long-term care facility in relation to (1) staff preferences for patient handling practices and (2) reductions in patient handling injury rates as a result of the ceiling lifts installed within a newly designed care facility.

Section snippets

Research design

The evaluation of the impact of the installation of portable ceiling lifts into a long-term care facility implemented using a quasi-experimental pre-post intervention design with a concurrent control in two long-term care facilities. The intervention facility was a 63-bed long-term care facility that was being moved into a newly constructed facility on the same property in Vancouver, BC, Canada. All of the residents and staff moved into the new facility on August 1st, 2002. This period was the

Questionnaire

A total of 32 respondents completed both the pre- and post-intervention questionnaire, including 17 in the intervention group and 15 in the comparison group. Questionnaire results indicated that 71% of intervention subjects used the ceiling lifts ‘at least once in the prior week’ for bed to chair or chair to bed transfers (“chair includes a commode or wheelchair”). During the post-intervention period, 98% of the comparison group and 59% of the intervention group used floor lifts with the help

Discussion

This study provides the first opportunity to explore the effects of proactively installing portable ceiling lifts in a multi-level care facility, whereas previous studies have only taken place in facilities that were retrofitted with ceiling lifts or in simulated laboratory settings. The results from this study are similar, however, to those reported by Engst et al., 2003, Engst et al., 2004, Engst et al., 2005, Ronald et al. (2002), Spiegel et al. (2002), and Zhang et al. (1999). In these

Conclusion

Introduction of ceiling lifts into long-term care facilities has positive reductions of patient handling injuries. Staff within the intervention facility did not find any significant differences between mechanical floor lifts and ceiling lifts in terms of risk for injury, but preferred to use the ceiling lifts for performing lifts and transfers of residents. When assessing the need for overhead lifting equipment, it is always necessary to assess the physical capabilities of the residents and

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (through its Community Alliance for Health Research funding program). The authors wish to acknowledge the Canada Research Council of Canada, through career support for Dr. Yassi, The Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in British Columbia, and the staff, management, and residents that participated in this study.

References (46)

  • C. Engst et al.

    Preventing back injuries to healthcare workers in British Columbia, Canada and the ceiling lift experience

  • C. Engst et al.

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

    Ergonomics

    (2005)
  • G. Fragala

    Striving for zero-lift in healthcare facilities

  • L.J. Fuortes et al.

    Epidemiology of back injury in university hospital nurses from review of Workers’ Compensation Records and a case-control survey

    J. Occup. Med.

    (1994)
  • Gamble, E., 1998. Evaluation of interventions developed to prevent/reduce musculoskeletal injuries in healthcare...
  • A. Garg et al.

    Prevention strategies and the low back in industry

    J. Occup. Med.

    (1992)
  • A. Garg et al.

    Reducing back stress to nursing personnel: an ergonomic intervention in a nursing home

    Ergonomics

    (1992)
  • A. Garg et al.

    An ergonomic evaluation of nursing assistants’ job in a nursing home

    Ergonomics

    (1992)
  • P.J. Holliday et al.

    The impact of new lifting technology in long term care: a pilot study

    AAOHN J.

    (1994)
  • R. Hollingdale et al.

    Back pain in nursing and associated factors: a study

    Nurs. Stand.

    (1997)
  • R.C. Jensen

    Back injuries among nursing personnel related to exposure

    Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg.

    (1990)
  • P.J. Keir et al.

    Muscle activity during patient transfers: a preliminary study on the influence of lift assists and experience

    Ergonomics

    (2004)
  • J.J. Knibbe et al.

    Prevalence of back pain and characteristics of physical workload of community nurses

    Ergonomics

    (1996)
  • Cited by (57)

    • Interventions to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders among healthcare staff in nursing homes; An integrative literature review

      2021, International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances
      Citation Excerpt :

      All four studies reported reduction in work-related musculoskeletal disorders and injury claims, but Kurowski et al. (2012) also found that a safe resident handling program encouraged lifting more appropriate weights and maintaining proper body posture at work as contributory to reduced work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Pre and post-injury intervention records were widely used to evaluate the outcome of the introduction of specialised equipment (Chhokar et al., 2005; Alamgir et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2006; Collins et al., 2004; Kurowski et al., 2012; Tompa et al., 2016; Alamgir et al., 2011), and outcomes included reduction in lost work days and injury compensation claims. Financial investment in specialised equipment was also profitable, it was revealed that the total savings from compensation claims in five years was three times the cost of specialised equipment and associated interventions (Brophy et al., 2001).

    • Care workers health in Swiss nursing homes and its association with psychosocial work environment: A cross-sectional study

      2016, International Journal of Nursing Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      As a result, nursing home care workers perform many physically & emotionally straining activities that put them at risk of injuries. Musculoskeletal injuries (e.g. back pain) have been reported as one of the most predominant physical health outcomes among care workers in nursing homes (Miller et al., 2006; Trinkoff et al., 2005), where job demands require frequent handling of patients in bed. Consequently, care workers often complain of back pain (Graham and Dougherty, 2012; OSHA, 2009).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text