Advertisement

Barriers and Facilitators in Implementing a Moving and Handling People Programme – An Exploratory Study

  • Hannele Lahti
  • Kirsten Olsen
  • Mark Lidegaard
  • Stephen Legg
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

Health care workers, including nurses, have one of the highest musculoskeletal injury incidence rates of any profession, especially work-related back injuries. The majority of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in health care are caused by moving and handling of people (MHP). In order to reduce MSDs due to MHP, some national health care sector authorities worldwide have developed intervention programmes or guidelines that can be used by their health care organisations. However, very few of the national interventions have been evaluated for their efficacy or impact. In those that have, the effort to reduce the incidence of MSDs caused by MHP has been largely unsuccessful, often because of barriers. This study aimed to identify what barriers, and facilitators, existed in health care organisations in relation to implementation of the New Zealand MHP guidelines. It was found that implementing a MHP programme especially requires sufficient resources for training and strong support based on evidence, or legislation. Management support for equipment purchase or maintenance is also essential, as is sufficient training for changing the culture of the workplace. It is also important to assess staff MHP knowledge and practices. MHP programmes need to be designed to be suitable for different sectors such as age care, and different users such as a foreign work force.

Keywords

Guidelines Evaluation Interventions 

References

  1. 1.
    Nelson A, Matz M, Chen F, Siddharthan K, Lloyd J, Fragala G (2006) Development and evaluation of a multifaceted ergonomics program to prevent injuries associated with patient handling tasks. Int J Nurs Stud 43(6):717–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hignett S (2003) Intervention strategies to reduce musculoskeletal injuries associated with handling patients: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 60(9):e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lidegaard M (2016) Uptake and impact of the ACC New Zealand moving and handling people guidelines. Ph D confirmation report. Massey University (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Humrickhouse R, Knibbe HJ (2016) The importance of safe patient handling to create a culture of safety: an evidential review. Ergon Open J 9(1):2742Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dogherty EJ, Harrison MB, Graham ID, Vandyk AD, Keeping-Burke L (2013) Turning knowledge into action at the point-of-care: the collective experience of nurses facilitating the implementation of evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 10(3):129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engkvist I-L (2008) Back injuries among nurses – a comparison of the accident processes after a 10-year follow-up. Saf Sci 46(2):291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krill C, Staffileno BA, Raven C (2012) Empowering staff nurses to use research to change practice for safe patient handling. Nurs Outlook 60(3):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silverstein B, Schurke J (2012) Washington state department of labor and industries’ SHARP program. Safety and health assessment and research for prevention. Washington State Department of Labor & IndustriesGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanaskie ML, Snyder C (2018) Nurses and nursing assistants decision-making regarding use of safe patient handling and mobility technology: a qualitative study. Appl Nurs Res 39:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olkowski BF, Stolfi AM (2014) Safe patient handling perceptions and practices: a survey of acute care physical therapists. Phys Ther 94(5):682–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoenfisch AL, Pompeii LA, Myers DJ, James T, Yeung YL, Fricklas E, Lipscomb HJ (2011) Objective measures of adoption of patient lift and transfer devices to reduce nursing staff injuries in the hospital setting. Am J Ind Med 54(12):935–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wardell H (2017) Reduction of injuries associated with patient handling. Aaohn J 55(10):407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olsen K, Lidegaard M, Legg S (2016) Assessment of the uptake and impact of the ACC New Zealand moving and handling people guidelines (2012). Report. Stage 2, Uptake and use. Part A, Descriptive analysis of questionnaire findings. Centre for ergonomics, Occupational safety and health, School of public health, Massey University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 15(3):398–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koppelaar E, Knibbe H, Miedema H, Burdorf A (2009) Determinants of implementation of primary preventive interventions on patient handling in healthcare: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 66(6):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elnitsky CA, Powell-Cope G, Besterman-Dahan KL, Rugs D, Ullrich PM (2015) Implementation of safe patient handling in the U.S. veterans health system: a qualitative study of internal facilitators’ perceptions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 12(4):208–216Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations