Electric Versus Hydraulic Hospital Beds: Differences in Use During Basic Nursing Tasks

• Autorzy: Capodaglio E. M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Biomechanical, postural and ergonomic aspects during real patient-assisting tasks performed by nurses using an electric versus a hydraulic hospital bed were observed. While there were no differences in the flexed postures the nurses adopted, longer performance times were recorded when electric beds were used. Subjective effort, force exertion and lumbar shear forces exceeding safety limits proved electric beds were superior. Patients’ dependency level seemed to influence the type of nurses’ intervention (duration and force actions), irrespective of the bed used. The nurses greatly appreciated the electric bed. Its use seemed to reduce the level of effort perceived during care giving and the postural load during critical subtasks. Ergonomics and organizational problems related to adopting electric beds in hospital wards should be addressed further to make their use more efficient.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

electric hospital bed; nursing tasks; biomechanical load

PL

elektryczne łóżko szpitalne; obciążenia biomechaniczne; personel pielęgniarski

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 19, No. 4
• Strony: 597--606
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 17 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Capodaglio E. M.

• Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, IRCCS, Scientific Institute of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Bibliografia

• 1.Capodaglio EM, Franchignoni F. Aspetti ergonomici del letto di degenza [Ergonomics of the hospital bed]. In: Bazzini G, Franchignoni F, Imbriani M, editors. Argomenti di terapia occupazionale [Evidence in occupational therapy]. Roma, Italy: Aracne; 2010. vol. III, p. 135–60.
• 2.Pompeii LA, , Lipscomb HJ, Schoenfisch AL, Dement JM. Musculoskeletal injuries resulting from patient handling tasks among hospital workers. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52(7):571–8.
• 3.Walls C. Do electric patient beds reduce the risk of lower back disorders in nurses? Occup Med (Lond). 2001 Sep;51(6):380–4. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/6/380.long.
• 4.Nelson A, editor. Safe patient handling and movement. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2006.
• 5.Caboor DE, Verlinden MO, Zinzen E, Van Roy P, Van Riel MP, Clarys JP. Implications of an adjustable bed height during standard nursing tasks on spinal motion, perceived exertion and muscular activity. Ergonomics. 2000;43(10):1771–80.
• 6.Hodder JN, Holmes MWR, Keir PJ. Continuous assessment of work activities and posture in long-term care nurses. Ergonomics. 2010;53(9):1097–107.
• 7.Fuortes LJ, Shi Y, Zhang M, Zwerling C, Schootman M. Epidemiology of back injury in university hospital nurses from review of workers’compensation records and a case-control study. J Occup Med. 1994;36(9):1022–6.
• 8.Waters T, Yeung S, Genaidy A, Callaghan J, Barriera-Viruet H, Abdallah S, Kumar S. Cumulative spinal loading exposure methods for manual materials handling tasks. Part 2: methodological issues and applicability for use in epidemiological studies. Theor Issues Ergon. 2006;7(2):131–48.
• 9.Daynard D, Yassi A, Cooper JE, Tate R, Norman R, Wells R. 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. Appl Ergon. 2001;32(3):199–214.
• 10.Nelson A, editor. Patient care ergonomics resource guide: safe patient handling and movement. Tampa, FL, USA: Patient Safety Center of Inquiry; 2001. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from: http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/WorkplaceSafety/Healthy-Work-Environment/SafePatient/Resources/ergonomics1.pdf.
• 11.Borg G. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL, USA: Human Kinetics; 1998.
• 12.Neumann WP, Wells RP, Norman RW. 4D WATBAK: adapting research tools and epidemiological findings to software for easy application by industrial personnel. In: International Conference on Computer-Aided Ergonomics and Safety. 1999. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from: http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ie.
• 13.Cole MH, Grimshaw PN. Compressive loads on the lumbar spine during lifting: 4D WATBAK versus inverse dynamics calculations. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2005;2(3–4):149–59.
• 14.Waters T, Sedlak CA, Howe CM, Gonzales CM, Doheny MO, Patterson M, et al. Recommended weight limits for lifting and holding limbs in the orthopaedic practice setting. Orthop Nurs. 2009;28(2 Suppl):S28–32.
• 15.Hignett S, McAtamney L. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon. 2000;31(2):201–5.
• 16.Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 1993;36(7):749–76.
• 17.Capodaglio EM. Analisi dell’uso di un letto di degenza in reparto ospedaliero [Analysis of using the hospital bed by nurses in the ward]. In: Bagnara S, Venturato C, Ivaldi I, Leone M, Ranzani F, Palmieri S, et al., editors. Atti IX Congresso Nazionale Societa Italiana di Ergonomia [Proceedings IX National Congress of the Italian Ergonomics Society]. Roma, Italy: Nuova Cultura; 2010. p. 355–60.