An ergonomic evaluation of nursing assistants' job in a nursing home.

Thirty-eight nursing assistants (NAs) in a nursing home ranked and rated 16 different patient handling tasks for perceived stresses to the low back. The nursing assistants were observed for 79 4 h shifts and were videotaped for 14 4 h shifts to describe a typical workday and to determine the number of patient-handling tasks performed per shift, the use of assistive devices, and biomechanical stresses to the low back. In addition, data were collected on nursing assistants' and patients' characteristics. The top eight ranked tasks included transferring patient from toilet to wheelchair (WC), WC to toilet, WC to bed, bed to WC, bathtub to WC, chairlift to WC, weighing patients and lifting patients up in bed. The mean ratings of perceived exertion for these tasks were between 'somewhat hard' and 'hard'. The estimated compressive force on L5/S1 disc for the 50th percentile patient weight ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 KN. Nursing assistants worked in teams of two and performed 24 patient transfers per 8 h shift by manually lifting and carrying patients. Assistive devices (a hydraulic lift and gait belt) were used less than 2% of the time. Patient safety and comfort, lack of accessibility, physical stresses associated with the devices, lack of skill, increased transfer time, and lack of staffing were some of the reasons for not using these assistive devices. Environmental barriers (such as confined workplaces, an uneven floor surface, lack of adjustability of beds, stationary railings around the toilet, etc.) made the job more difficult. Nursing assistants had a high prevalence of low-back pain and 51% of nursing assistants visited a health care provider in the last three years for work related low-back pain.     

Biomechanical evaluation of assistive devices for transferring residents.

This is the first of two articles to report a biomechanical evaluation and psychophysical assessment of nine battery-powered lifts, a sliding board, a walking belt, and a baseline manual method for transferring nursing home residents from a bed to a chair. The objectives of the biomechanical evaluation were: (1) to investigate the effects of transfer method and resident weight on the biomechanical stress to nursing assistants performing the transferring task, and (2) to identify resident-transferring methods that could reduce the biomechanical stress to the nursing assistants. Nine nursing assistants served as test subjects; two elderly persons participated as residents. A four-camera motion analysis system, two force platforms, and a three-dimensional biomechanical model were used to measure biomechanical load. The results indicate that transfer method and resident weight affect a nursing assistant's low-back loading. The basket-sling and overhead lift devices significantly reduced the nursing assistants' back-compressive forces during the preparation phase of a resident transfer. In addition, the use of basket-sling, overhead, and stand-up lifts removed about two-thirds of the exposure to low-back stress (lifting activities per transfer) as compared to the baseline manual method. Thus, the use of these devices reduces biomechanical stress, and thereby will decrease the occurrence of resident-handling-related low-back injuries. Furthermore, lifting device maneuvering forces were found to be significantly different and a number of design/use problems were identified with various assistive devices. The second article will detail the psychophysical assessment of the same resident-transferring methods.     

Psychophysical assessment of assistive devices for transferring patients/residents

This article reports the psychophysical assessment of nine battery-powered lifts, a sliding board, a walking belt, and a baseline manual method for transferring nursing home patients/residents from a bed to a chair. A separate article reports the biomechanical evaluation of the same task and devices. The objectives of the psychophysical assessment were to investigate the effects of resident-transferring methods on the psychophysical stress to nursing assistants performing the transferring task, and to identify transfer methods that could reduce the psychophysical stress reported by nursing assistants. Nine nursing assistants served as test subjects. Two elderly persons participated as residents. The results indicated that the psychophysical stresses on nursing assistants were significantly lower when performing resident transfers with some of the assistive devices than when performing transfers with the baseline manual transfer method. The nursing assistants generally preferred the basket-sling lift and stand-up lift to other methods. The residents' comfort and security ratings indicated the comfort and security with most of the assistive devices were greater than or equal to the baseline manual method. Most of the comments of the nursing assistants and residents on the assistive devices were favourable.     

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

A prospective epidemiologic study was conducted in two units (140 beds and 57 nursing assistants) of a nursing home to demonstrate the efficacy of an ergonomic intervention strategy to reduce back stress to nursing personnel. The total programme involved the following: determining patient handling tasks perceived to be most stressful by the nursing assistants (NAs); performing an ergonomic evaluation of these tasks; and conducting a laboratory study to select patient transferring devices perceived to produce less physical stress than existing manual patient-handling methods. The intervention phase included training NAs in the use of these devices, modifying toilets and shower rooms, and applying techniques to patient care. Immediately after completing the intervention programme, a post-intervention analysis (which lasted eight months in unit 1 and four months in unit 2) was performed.

A biomechanical evaluation of the physical demands required to perform stressful patient-handling tasks showed that the mean compressive force on the L5/S1 disc, the mean hand force required to make a transfer, and the strength requirements (expressed as percentage female population capable) were 1964?N, 122?N, and 83% after intervention as compared to 4751?N, 312?N, and 41% before intervention. Subjectively, the mean rating of perceived exertion was less than ‘very light’ after intervention as compared to between ‘somewhat hard’ and ‘hard’ before intervention. Overall, the mean acceptability rates for the walking belt and the mechanical hoist were 81% and 87% for patient transfers. The incidence rate for back injuries prior to the intervention, 83 per 200 000 work-hours, decreased to 47 per 200 000 work-hours after the intervention. There were no injuries resulting in lost or restricted work days during the last four months of the post-intervention. It is concluded that an appropriate ergonomic intervention programme offers great promise in reducing physical stress and risk of low-back pain to nursing personnel. However, large-scale studies in different nursing homes are needed to confirm the above findings.     

Prevention of back injuries in healthcare workers

A laboratory study was conducted to evaluate five different manual techniques (two-person lifting; rocking and pulling the patient using a gait belt with two persons; walking belt with handles with one and two persons; and a patient handling sling with cutouts with one person) for transferring patients from wheelchair to toilet and toilet to wheelchair. In addition, three different mechanical hoists (H, T and A) were studied for transferring patients from toilet to wheelchair. Six female nursing students with prior patient transfer experience served both as nurses and passive patients.

The mean trunk flexion moments, erector spinae muscle forces and compressive forces for the four manual pulling methods ranged from 93 to 133 Nm, 1861 to 2653 N and 1974 to 2745 N, respectively, as compared to about 200 Nm, 4100 N and 4800 N for two-person manual lifting. Manual lifting was perceived to be the most stressful by the nurses and the least comfortable and secure by the patients. Hoist A was perceived to be the least stressful and the most comfortable and secure. Hoists H and T were perceived to be more stressful, less comfortable and less secure than the walking belt.

An intervention study was conducted in two units of a nursing home (140 beds and 57 NAs) to determine the effectiveness of ergonomic changes. Nursing assistants (NAs) in the two units of the nursing home were trained in the use of selected devices and shower rooms and toilets were modified. The mean acceptability rates for walking belt and hoist A were 81% and 87%, respectively. The reported incidence and severity rates for back injuries over 13 months decreased from 83 to 43 and from 634 to 0, respectively, after the intervention. Nursing assistants perceived their job as “very light” after the intervention as compared to between “somewhat hard” and “hard” before intervention.     

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

A prospective epidemiologic study was conducted in two units (140 beds and 57 nursing assistants) of a nursing home to demonstrate the efficacy of an ergonomic intervention strategy to reduce back stress to nursing personnel. The total programme involved the following: determining patient handling tasks perceived to be most stressful by the nursing assistants (NAs); performing an ergonomic evaluation of these tasks; and conducting a laboratory study to select patient transferring devices perceived to produce less physical stress than existing manual patient-handling methods. The intervention phase included training NAs in the use of these devices, modifying toilets and shower rooms, and applying techniques to patient care. Immediately after completing the intervention programme, a post-intervention analysis (which lasted eight months in unit 1 and four months in unit 2) was performed. A biomechanical evaluation of the physical demands required to perform stressful patient-handling tasks showed that the mean compressive force on the L5/S1 disc, the mean hand force required to make a transfer, and the strength requirements (expressed as percentage female population capable) were 1964 N, 122 N, and 83% after intervention as compared to 4751 N, 312 N, and 41% before intervention. Subjectively, the mean rating of perceived exertion was less than 'very light' after intervention as compared to between 'somewhat hard' and 'hard' before intervention. Overall, the mean acceptability rates for the walking belt and the mechanical hoist were 81% and 87% for patient transfers. The incidence rate for back injuries prior to the intervention, 83 per 200,000 work-hours, decreased to 47 per 200,000 work-hours after the intervention. There were no injuries resulting in lost or restricted work days during the last four months of the post-intervention. It is concluded that an appropriate ergonomic intervention programme offers great promise in reducing physical stress and risk of low-back pain to nursing personnel. However, large-scale studies in different nursing homes are needed to confirm the above findings.     

A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder risk and spinal loading during the transferring and repositioning of patients using different techniques.

Although patient handlers suffer from low-back injuries at an alarming rate worldwide, there has been limited research quantifying the risk for the specific tasks performed by the patient handlers. The current study used both a comprehensive evaluation system (low-back disorder risk model) and theoretical model (biomechanical spinal loading model) to evaluate risk of LBD of 17 participants (12 experienced and five inexperienced) performing several patient handling tasks. Eight of the participants were female and nine were male. Several patient transfers were evaluated as well as repositioning of the patient in bed; these were performed with one and two people. The patient transfers were between bed and wheelchair (fixed and removable arms) and between commode chair and hospital chair. A 'standard' patient (a 50 kg co-operative female; non-weight bearing but had use of upper body) was used in all patient handling tasks. Overall, patient handling was found to be an extremely hazardous job that had substantial risk of causing a low-back injury whether with one or two patient handlers. The greatest risk was associated with the one-person transferring techniques with the actual task being performed having a limited effect. The repositioning techniques were found to have significant risk of LBD associated with them with the single hook method having the highest LBD risk and spinal loads that exceeded the tolerance limits (worst patient handling job). The two-person draw sheet repositioning technique had the lowest LBD risk and spinal loads but still had relatively high spinal loads and LBD risk. Thus, even the safest of tasks (of the tasks evaluated in this study) had significant risk. Additionally, the current study represented a 'best' case scenario since the patient was relatively light and co-operative. Thus, patient handling in real situations such as in a nursing home, would be expected to be worse. Therefore, to have an impact on LBD, it is necessary to provide mechanical lift assist devices.     

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

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.     

Mobility assistive devices and self-transfer robotic systems for elderly, a review

When mobility degrades with age, it is of great significance to develop devices which can support the elderly in their day-to-day life. With the usage of intelligent assistive robotic systems, elderly population can lead a better quality of life independently. This article is a review of various assistive devices for elderly focussing on mobility and self-transfer systems. The practical difficulties in walking and moving from bed to wheel chair or wheel chair to toilet seat affect the daily activities of aged people. Depending on caregivers to access toilets affects one’s dignity. The review covers various advances that have been evolved in this area of research and addresses the limitations to be overcome.     

Electromyographic evaluation of a bed assistive device for abdominal surgery patients in postoperative care

OBJECTIVE: Muscle activity with and without the use of commercially available patient assistive devices during bed rising and lowering was quantified. BACKGROUND: Limited research is available in understanding or evaluating the physical benefits of assistive devices for patient use following major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants (9 men, 11 women) took part in a laboratory study to test the effects of device configuration (five levels) and bed elevation angle (0 degree and 30 degrees) on mean and peak upper and lower rectus abdominis and external oblique concentric and eccentric muscle activity. RESULTS: Reduced muscle activity was associated with the use of an assistive device, as compared with manual bed rising (unassisted). Positioning the devices at a higher anchor height and/or increasing the bed elevation angle further reduced muscle activity. Objective and subjective differences between the two assistive devices evaluated in the study were found. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that self-assistive devices may speed recovery because of reduced loads on damaged tissues. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include the assessment of other commercially available lift aids or comparisons of self-assistive lift aids with hospital-housed lift aids used to speed recovery rates.     

LIST OF MEMBERS AND THEIR APPOINTMENTS—l957

This study examines the potential effect of short-term practice on low-back stresses during manual lifting and lowering of a 15 kg load, and while using two different types of materials handling devices (MHDs) to lift and lower a 40 kg load. The two MHDs used were an articulated balance arm and a pneumatic hoist. The expectation was that low-back dynamic moments, EMG measured torso muscle antagonism, and EMG predicted L4/L5 disc compression forces would rapidly decrease with practice, and that the manual lift-lower activities would be learned faster than the MHD-assisted exertions. Four naïve male college age subjects performed 40 lift and lower exertions, both manually and with the two MHDs for a total of 24 experiments. Non-linear regressions of the peak and average low-back moments, EMGs and disc compression values revealed only small decreases in the values (from 2 to 14%) over the 40 trials, and it was only statistically significant for five of the 48 regressions. This would seem to indicate that if learning is present in these tasks it is going to be very slow learning, and thus future studies will need to include a much larger number of trials. The effects of MHDs on the learning rates when compared to manual lifting learning rates was not statistically significant. It was shown, however, that MHDs had a particularly beneficial effect on reducing L4/L5 compression forces during load lowering activities despite the MHD load being much heavier than the manual load. It also was found that the level of torso muscle co-contraction increased significantly (2–4 times) when MHD handling was involved compared to manual lifting and lowering.     

Implications of an adjustable bed height during standard nursing tasks on spinal motion,perceived exertion and muscular activity

Manual handling is a source of occupational stress, particularly for nursing personnel. High levels of biomechanical strain are associated with lifting and transferring patients, especially when the tasks are performed in flexed and twisted positions that induce an increased risk of functional and musculoskeletal problems. The use of adjustable beds in nursing practice has been suggested as a means of influencing working postures and reducing the muscular demands on nurses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on spinal motion, muscular activity and perceived exertion when nurses had the opportunity to adjust bed height. The measures recorded during the conduct of standardized patient handling tasks were the changes in posture (inclination) and in shape (sagittal bending, side bending, axial rotation). Muscular activity was measured using surface electromyography. Perceived exertion was rated using the 15-graded Borg scale. The range of motion was not influenced by the adjustment of bed height, but rather a shift of the time duration histogram was noticed in the direction of the erect, safer position. The time spent in the safe zone of spinal motion near the erect position was significantly increased and was significantly decreased in the potential health-hazardous zones of spinal motion in the extreme positions. No differences in muscular activity or in perceived exertion were found between the two bed height conditions for any of the muscle groups. It was concluded that the quality of spinal motion is enhanced when the opportunity of adjusting the bed height is offered.     

Implications of an adjustable bed height during standard nursing tasks on spinal motion, perceived exertion and muscular activity

Manual handling is a source of occupational stress, particularly for nursing personnel. High levels of biomechanical strain are associated with lifting and transferring patients, especially when the tasks are performed in flexed and twisted positions that induce an increased risk of functional and musculoskeletal problems. The use of adjustable beds in nursing practice has been suggested as a means of influencing working postures and reducing the muscular demands on nurses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on spinal motion, muscular activity and perceived exertion when nurses had the opportunity to adjust bed height. The measures recorded during the conduct of standardized patient handling tasks were the changes in posture (inclination) and in shape (sagittal bending, side bending, axial rotation). Muscular activity was measured using surface electromyography. Perceived exertion was rated using the 15-graded Borg scale. The range of motion was not influenced by the adjustment of bed height, but rather a shift of the time duration histogram was noticed in the direction of the erect, safer position. The time spent in the safe zone of spinal motion near the erect position was significantly increased and was significantly decreased in the potential health-hazardous zones of spinal motion in the extreme positions. No differences in muscular activity or in perceived exertion were found between the two bed height conditions for any of the muscle groups. It was concluded that the quality of spinal motion is enhanced when the opportunity of adjusting the bed height is offered.     

Biomechanical analysis of peak and cumulative spinal loads during simulated patient-handling activities: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial to prevent lift and transfer injury of health care workers

Back injuries are a serious problem for nursing personnel who perform frequent patient-handling activities. Common prevention strategies include body mechanics education, technique training, and ergonomic interventions such as the introduction of assistive equipment. This investigation assessed and compared the effectiveness of two patient-handling approaches to reducing injury risk. One strategy involved using improved patient-handling technique with existing equipment, and the other approach aimed at eliminating manual patient handling through the use of additional mechanical and other assistive equipment. Both intervention arms received training in back care, patient assessment, and use of the equipment available on their particular wards. An analysis of compliance with interventions and the effects of patient-handling methods on both peak and cumulative spinal compression and shear during various tasks was conducted. Results showed greater compliance with interventions that incorporated new assistive patient-handling equipment, as opposed to those consisting of education and technique training alone. In several tasks, subjects who were untrained or non-compliant with interventions experienced significantly higher peak spinal loading. However, patient-handling tasks conducted with the aid of assistive equipment took substantially longer than those performed manually. This, along with variations in techniques, led to increases in cumulative spinal loading with the use of patient-handling equipment on some tasks. Thus, the use of mechanical assistive devices may not always be the best approach to reducing back injuries in all situations. No single intervention can be recommended; instead all patient-handling tasks should be examined separately to determine which methods maximize reductions in both peak and cumulative lumbar forces during a manoeuver.     

Analysis of biomechanical stresses during drywall lifting

Constant lifting of massive and bulky drywall sheets creates overexertion hazards among drywall installers. The objective of this study was to gain understanding of the biomechanical stresses imposed on the workers while lifting drywall sheets. A video analysis was performed to identify current drywall lifting techniques. Computer simulations of these techniques for lifting drywall sheets of 60, 80, and 100 lb were then conducted to estimate the biomechanical loadings on the workers. Four lifting methods were determined to be the most commonly used drywall lifting techniques. The University of Michigan Three-Dimensional Static Strength Prediction Program (3DSSPP^TM) was used for the simulations. It was found that all four lifting techniques produced considerable biomechanical stresses at the workers' shoulders, torsos, and hips. Only a limited percentage of the male population has sufficient strength capability to perform the task. The estimated L5/S1 and L4/L5 disc compression forces were consistently high, ranging from 655 to 1363 lb for various loads and postures analyzed. Results from this study provided evidence regarding the biomechanical stresses associated with drywall lifting. Further studies are recommended to identify less stressful drywall lifting methods and to develop safe assistive devices to reduce overexertion injuries.

Relevance to industry

There is an increasing tendency toward awareness of ergonomic issues in the construction industry. One area of the construction industry – drywall installation – has been troubled with overexertion injuries. Lifting massive and bulky drywall sheets increases the risk of overexertion injuries. Prior to this study there has been little substantive research to quantify the excessive stresses imposed on drywall installers.     

Using sitting as a component of job rotation strategies: Are lifting/lowering kinetics and kinematics altered following prolonged sitting

Workers are often required to perform manual materials handling tasks immediately following periods of prolonged sitting either as a secondary job component of as different tasks in a job rotation strategy. The goal of this investigation was to determine if changes to low-back kinetics and/or kinematics occurred during repetitive lifting/lowering exertions following extended seated exposures. Upper body kinematics, lumbar spine flexion angle, pelvic orientation and bilateral muscle activity from the external abdominal obliques and lumbar erector spinae were recorded for 8 males and 8 females while they alternated between sessions of repetitive lifting/lowering and prolonged sitting. Upper body kinematics were used as inputs to a linked segment model to compute low-back flexion/extension moments, compression, and shear. Peak lumbar flexion was reduced by 1.8° during the lifting/lowering exertions following the first hour of sitting which consequently led to a reduction of approximately 50 N in the reaction anteroposterior shear forces. Sitting postures were consistent with previously reported data. The reduced shear loads during repetitive lift/lower exertions following prolonged sitting may be a consequence of alterations in passive tissue properties which could alter the risk of low-back injury, although future research is required to examine the biomechanical significance of this finding. Changes to both kinematics and kinetics were minimal suggesting that using prolonged sitting as a component of a task series in job rotation does not alter the risk present when combined with repetitive lifting tasks.     

Low back injury risk during repositioning of patients in bed: the influence of handling technique, patient weight and disability

The objective of the study was to investigate the low back load during repositioning of patients in bed and to assess the influence of patient's weight and disability. Nine female health care workers (HCWs) carried out six patient-handling tasks with different patient weight (59 +/- 1, 83 +/- 2 and 110 +/- 4 kg) and handicap (hemiplegia, paraplegia and near-paralysis). The tasks were performed with optional use of simple, low-tech assistant devices (draw and sliding sheets). Peak low back compression exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health action level of 3400 N in 25% of all trials (418). The influence of the HCW, i.e. the technique and assistive devices used, was higher than the effect of weight and disability in all tasks studied. ANOVA showed that on average for the six tasks 37%, 10% and 6% of the variance in low back loading was caused by variation in the factors HCW, patient's weight and disability, respectively. The result of this study is relevant for HCWs. It is shown that the repositioning technique and use of friction-reducing devices have higher influence on the low back load of the HCW than the patient's weight and disability.     

Adaptive motion generation using imitation learning and highly compliant end effector for autonomous cleaning

Recent demographic trends in super aging societies, such as Japan, is leading to severe worker shortage. Service robots can play a promising role to augment human workers for performing various household and assistive tasks. Toilet cleanup is one such challenging task that involves performing complaint motion planning in a constrained toilet setting. In this study, we propose an end-to-end robotic framework to perform various tasks related to toilet cleanup. Our key contributions include the design of a complaint and multipurpose end-effector, an adaptive motion generation algorithm, and an autonomous mobile manipulator capable of garbage detection, garbage disposal and liquid removal. We evaluate the performance of our framework with the competition setting used for toilet cleanup in the Future Convenience Store Challenge at the World Robot Summit 2018. We demonstrate that our proposed framework is capable of successfully completing all the tasks of the competition within the time limit.     

Occupational lifting by nursing aides and warehouse workers

Nursing aides (18 women and six men) at one traditional and one modern geriatric ward, and warehouse workers (16 men) at two different types of warehouse departments were studied during occupational work. The vertical load during manual handling was measured using strain gauges built into wooden shoes. The warehouse workers performed four times as many lifts as the nursing aides and transferred five times as great a mass per unit time. Less than 25% of the lifts were carried out with the load evenly distributed on both feet during both the upward lift and lowering. In the warehouses the lifts were short, while the nursing aides were exposed both to lifts of longer duration and to carrying, as well as a greater frequency of unexpected, sudden and high peak load. The heart rate and oxygen uptake values recorded were relatively low, and both groups utilized approximately 25% of their maximum aerobic power. According to official occupational injury statistics, both warehouse workers and nursing aides belong to risk groups with a high frequency of reported back injuries. However, more injuries are reported by nursing aides than by warehouse workers. Greater muscle strength in male workers may partly explain this difference. Qualitative differences in the design of the lifting work, with more lifts of long duration in awkward work postures, more carrying, more exertion of horizontal forces and a greater frequency of unexpected rapid lifts in the nursing aides may also contribute to the differences in risk of injury between these occupational groups. Considerable differences were found between the two hospital wards as regards lifting frequency, force, duration and the proportion of lifts with an even distribution of load on both feet during upward lift. The lifting work was approximately 50% less in the modern ward, which has easily maneuvered electric overhead hoists, spacious premises and better work organization than in the traditional ward, even though the patient handling needs were equivalent. In the warehouse department at which the wares were stored with easy access, the frequency of lifts with an even distribution of load on both feet was approximately 25%, compared to 7% in the other warehouse department. In conclusion, evaluations of occupational lifting work should include a quantitative assessment of the duration and load distribution of lifting, as well as of postures. Workstation design, technical aids and work organization have a profound effect on the lifting work load even in jobs with equal manual handling demands.     

Low back injury risk during repositioning of patients in bed: the influence of handling technique,patient weight and disability

The objective of the study was to investigate the low back load during repositioning of patients in bed and to assess the influence of patient's weight and disability. Nine female health care workers (HCWs) carried out six patient-handling tasks with different patient weight (59 ± 1, 83 ± 2 and 110 ± 4 kg) and handicap (hemiplegia, paraplegia and near-paralysis). The tasks were performed with optional use of simple, low-tech assistant devices (draw and sliding sheets). Peak low back compression exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health action level of 3400 N in 25% of all trials (418). The influence of the HCW, i.e. the technique and assistive devices used, was higher than the effect of weight and disability in all tasks studied. ANOVA showed that on average for the six tasks 37%, 10% and 6% of the variance in low back loading was caused by variation in the factors HCW, patient's weight and disability, respectively. The result of this study is relevant for HCWs. It is shown that the repositioning technique and use of friction-reducing devices have higher influence on the low back load of the HCW than the patient's weight and disability.