Human-Centered Design in the Care of Immobile Patients

  • Thomas Läubli
  • Roger Gassert
  • Masaru Nakaseko
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6776)


Nurses frequently suffer from low back pain, but oppose against using mechanical lifting devices. It was found that the nurses’ reluctance to use technical aids may be due to several drawbacks of currently used lifting devices in patient care: 1) the lifting maneuver is controlled through a control device located at a distant position form the patient (e.g. fixed to the supporting structure). 2) Conventional lifting devices are position controlled and operate at a low velocity. 3) The lifting device holds the entire weight of the patient, while the nurse performs translational movements. Therefore existing technological solutions were studied and novel ways were explored of achieving intuitive interaction, e.g. through the use of force and position sensors and shared control strategies. The initial results of our task analysis suggest that both the handicapped/ immobile person and the nurse may be supported by intelligent assistive lifting devices.


nurses lifting device intuitive interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alamgir, H., Cvitkovich, Y., Yu, S., Yassi, A.: Work-related injury among direct care occupations in British Columbia. Canada. Occup. Environ. Med. 64(11), 769–775 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hignett, S., Fray, M., Rossi, M.A., Tamminen-Peter, L., Hermann, S., Lomi, C., Dockrell, S., Johnsson, C.: Implementation of the Manual Handling Directive in the healthcare industry in the European Union for patient handling tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37(5), 415–423 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krieger, R., Graf, M.: Arbeit und Gesundheit - Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Gesundheitsbefragung 2007. SECO, Arbeitsbedingungen (2009), (retrieved form January 25, 2011)
  4. 4.
    Läubli, T., Müller, C.: Arbeitsbedingungen und Erkrankungen des Bewegungsapparates – geschätzte Fallzahlen und Kosten für die Schweiz. Die Volkswirtschaft 82, 22–25 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Läubli, T., Müller, C.: Conditions de travail et maladies de l’appareil locomoteur. Revue de politique économique 82, 22–25 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colgate, J.E., Peshkin, M., Klostermeyer, S.H.: Intelligent assist devices in industrial applications: a review. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), vol. 3, pp. 2516–2521 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Läubli
    • 1
  • Roger Gassert
    • 1
  • Masaru Nakaseko
    • 2
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Kyoto Institute of TechnologyJapan

Personalised recommendations