Garg A, Owen B, Beller D, Banaag J
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 53201.
Ergonomics. 1991 Mar;34(3):289-312. doi: 10.1080/00140139108967314.
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.
进行了一项实验室研究,旨在减轻护理人员在执行将患者从床转移到轮椅以及从轮椅转移到床的患者搬运任务时的背部压力。这些患者搬运任务采用了五种手动技术和三种升降机辅助技术进行研究。手动技术包括一人搬运和两人搬运。一种手动技术是两人在患者腋下抬起;其他技术采用摇晃和拉动动作,并包括使用辅助设备(两人搬运时使用步态带,一人搬运和两人搬运时使用带把手的步行带,以及单人搬运时使用带有切口区域以便抓握的患者搬运吊带(Medesign))。三种机械升降机分别是Hoyer、Trans - Aid和Ambulift。六名有患者搬运经验的女护生既充当护士又充当被动患者。静态生物力学评估表明,与抬起患者相比,拉动技术所需的手部力量显著更低,并且在L5/S1椎间盘处产生的竖脊肌力量和压缩力也显著更低(P大于或等于0.01)。剪切力、躯干力矩以及能够完成搬运的女性比例(基于静态强度模拟)也更有利于拉动方法。拉动方法在肩部、上背部、下背部和全身的感知压力评分低于抬起患者的方法(P小于或等于0.01)。患者发现,除了使用步态带时,拉动技术比抬起方法感觉更舒适、更安全(P小于或等于0.01)。然而,一些受试者认为,对于那些无法承重、体重较大、身体僵硬或好斗的患者,患者搬运吊带(Medesign)和单人搬运的步行带不起作用。两人的步行带是首选的手动方法。护士认为三种升降机中的两种(Hoyer升降机和Trans - Aid)与手动方法一样对身体有压力。患者发现这两种升降机比五种手动方法中的三种(一人和两人步行带以及Medesign)更不舒服且感觉更不安全。在所有八种方法中,Ambulift被发现压力最小、最舒适且最安全。与手动抬起患者相比,拉动技术和升降机进行转移所需的时间显著更长(P小于或等于0.01)。建议使用采用拉动技术的两人步行带和Ambulift将患者从床转移到轮椅以及从轮椅转移到床。需要进行大规模的现场研究来验证这些建议。