CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

Purpose: Despite the evidence supporting safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) practices, anecdotal evidence suggests that such practices are not universally taught in academic nursing programs. The primary goal of this cross-sectional descriptive study was to understand what nursing programs teach students about lifting, turning, transferring, repositioning, and mobilizing patients.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs
From $10/Page
Order Essay

Methods: Faculty from baccalaureate and associate’s degree nursing programs in the United States were invited via e-mail to complete a 64-item survey questionnaire, which was accessible through an online link. Participants were also invited to send documents related to SPHM course content to the research team.

Results: Faculty from 228 baccalaureate and associate’s degree nursing programs completed the questionnaire. Most curricula included outdated manual techniques, taught reliance on body mechanics to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, and made use of nonergonomic aids such as draw sheets. Elements of SPHM in the curricula were less common, and nearly half of the respondents didn’t know whether their affiliated clinical facilities had an SPHM program.

Conclusions: The survey results suggest many possibilities for improvement—such as partnering with faculty in physical and occupational therapy departments, clinical partnering, and working with equipment vendors—to better incorporate evidence-based SPHM principles and practices into nursing curricula.

The Heavy Toll of Patient-Handling Injuries

Health care workers who perform patient-handling tasks frequently incur musculoskeletal pain and injury as a result, with nurses and nursing assistants among those at highest risk. This continues to be the case despite decades of focus on the body mechanics of patient handling; the availability of specialized equipment, staff training, and educational initiatives; as well as calls for safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) efforts from agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (See The Heavy Toll of Patient-Handling Injuries.) Numerous barriers prevent the widespread adoption and spread of SPHM programs in health care facilities, despite substantial evidence of their benefits. These barriers can include a safety culture that focuses primarily on patient safety, staff shortages, initial equipment costs, time constraints that keep nursing staff from obtaining assistance or using patient handling equipment, failures by health care leadership to advocate SPHM, difficulties in sustaining SPHM programs after implementation, and weak or nonexistent state and federal legislation regarding SPHM.

We wanted to learn more about the prevalence of SPHM programs in U.S. nursing schools overall and what nursing curricula include with regard to SPHM content and resources. The short-term objective of this cross-sectional descriptive study was to understand what was being taught in nursing programs about lifting, turning, transferring, and repositioning patients.

BACKGROUND: THE EVIDENCE FOR SPHM

Definitions of terms. Early researchers applied principles from the field of ergonomics in an effort to reframe how health care workers think about handling and moving patients. The International Ergonomics Association defines ergonomics as “the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.” The term safe patient handling and mobility refers to the application of ergonomics to lifting, transferring, repositioning, and mobilizing patients in order to prevent staff injuries and optimize patient mobility. From an ergonomics perspective, safe mobilization takes three aspects into account: the task to be performed (transferring a patient from a bed to a chair, for example), the mobility capabilities of the patient (such as whether a patient can stand with assistance), and any assistive technology used (such as a stand-assist lift).

Improved outcomes for health care workers. In 1999, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established a National Center for Patient Safety, and subsequently created four Patient Safety Centers of Inquiry (PSCIs). Soon thereafter, researchers at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital PSCI in Tampa, Florida, were among the first to apply an ergonomics approach to patient handling. One expert panel identified priority areas for reducing nursing staff injuries associated with manual lifting by assessing the causes of injury and then redesigning high-risk patient transfer tasks. Researchers then assessed the biomechanical loads of high-risk tasks in the laboratory, and implemented a controlled demonstration project on 23 high-risk units in seven Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. The demonstration project resulted in a significantly reduced rate of musculoskeletal injury and fewer modified workdays taken per injury. The initial equipment investment was regained in less than four years, based on savings in workers’ compensation costs and costs related to lost or modified workdays. Researchers working outside the PSCIs have shown similar results. For example, in an Ohio study of nursing home workers, an investment in ergonomic equipment of $500 per worker was associated with a 21% reduction in back injury, and equipment costs were more than offset by reductions in compensation claims.

There is strong evidence indicating that the implementation of multicomponent SPHM programs results in improved outcomes. For example, a three-year longitudinal evaluation of the VHA’s nationally implemented SPHM program showed that from 2008 to 2011, the incidence rates of patient handling–related musculoskeletal disorders in nurses dropped markedly, with safe patient handling practices accounting for 23% of the reduction. Another evaluation of the VHA’s SPHM program by Hodgson and colleagues found that from 2006 to 2011, patient handling injuries declined by more than 40%. Program components associated with decreased injury rates included peer leader training, peer leader effectiveness, equipment deployment, competency in equipment use, and safety committee involvement. The use of decision-making algorithms and policy changes were also factors.

Based on such results, governmental agencies such as OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) endorsed this systematic ergonomic approach for the prevention of musculoskeletal injuries among health care workers. To our knowledge, at the time of this writing, at least 11 states have promulgated SPHM-specific legislation. In 2013, the American Nurses Association (ANA) published Safe Patient Handling and Mobility: Interprofessional National Standards Across the Care Continuum. And with regard to professional education, beginning in 2004 a workgroup of ANA, NIOSH, and VHA experts designed curricular materials on safe patient handling, including ergonomics, for nursing schools; this curriculum module was subsequently published by NIOSH in 2009.

Improved patient outcomes. Besides reducing staff injuries, there is evidence that SPHM programs have played a role in improved patient outcomes, including improved mobility and fewer complications of immobility. Evidence supporting SPHM from a patient perspective has been persuasive to the Joint Commission, which is responsible for standard setting, evaluation, and accreditation of U.S. health care organizations. The Joint Commission now includes a chapter on patient safety systems in its hospital, ambulatory care, and office-based surgery program manuals.

Yet most studies of SPHM programs have neither used strong research designs nor linked program components to outcomes. In 2006, de Castro and colleagues outlined the problem of patient handling injuries, highlighting the ANA’s Handle with Care campaign, and issued a call to nurse administrators to advocate SPHM in health care. Since then, while many organizations have implemented elements of SPHM programs, implementation of comprehensive SPHM programs throughout health care has been uneven. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

SPHM curricula in nursing schools. Despite support for SPHM by the ANA and other professional organizations (including the American Physical Therapy Association and the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses), anecdotal evidence suggests that SPHM has not been universally taught in academic health care programs and technical schools. According to Menzel and colleagues, barriers to SPHM curricula in nursing schools include opinion leaders objecting to change, traditional teaching of body mechanics, faculty resistance to adding introductory course content, faculty unfamiliarity with patient care ergonomics, a lack of SPHM equipment in clinical skills laboratories, outdated questions on the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) that emphasize manual handling, and the use of textbooks that don’t include SPHM practices. Indeed, textbook content is driven by NCLEX-RN questions, and while progress has been made, there is still reason for concern. For example, while Yoost and Crawford’s Fundamentals of Nursing includes ergonomically based recommendations for the use of equipment when moving and transferring patients, it also includes photographs of nurses repositioning patients in bed using draw sheets. The 2016 NCLEX-RN detailed test plan states that the test covers “use [of] ergonomic principles when providing care (e.g., safe patient handling, proper lifting)”; similarly, the 2017 detailed test plan for the practical nurse version (NCLEX-PN) mentions “use [of] safe client handling techniques (e.g., body mechanics)” in the ergonomic principles section. But it’s unclear to what extent test items actually reflect this. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

Our literature search yielded no evidence on the prevalence of SPHM coverage in U.S. nursing programs or what SPHM content and resources are included in nursing curricula. In evaluating the effects of the aforementioned NIOSH curriculum in 26 nursing schools, Nelson and colleagues found that nurse educators’ and students’ knowledge about SPHM equipment, as well as intention to use mechanical lifting devices in the near future, improved significantly at intervention schools. A study by Powell-Cope and colleagues found that faculty were overwhelmingly positive about the NIOSH curriculum. The researchers identified several implementation facilitators and recommendations for overcoming barriers, such as partnering with academic, clinical, and community colleagues; working with equipment vendors; using the curriculum module, which they characterized as structured yet flexible; and obtaining nursing school leadership support. Educational institutions could play a key role in achieving universal SPHM in all patient care settings by teaching SPHM knowledge and skills, expecting students to use SPHM in patient care, and reinforcing SPHM in clinical settings. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

Study objectives. As noted earlier, the short-term objective of this study was to understand what was being taught in nursing programs about lifting, turning, transferring, and repositioning patients. More specifically, we sought to determine the extent to which SPHM content and resources were present in nursing program curricula, and to identify program characteristics associated with such presence. The long-term objective was to raise awareness of SPHM principles and practices in nursing academia so that they could be more fully integrated into the curricula. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

METHODS

Study design. The study design was a cross-sectional descriptive survey of baccalaureate and associate’s degree nursing programs in the United States. The survey was reviewed by the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital Department of Research and Development. Since it was determined that the survey constituted an operations activity, institutional review board approval was not required.

Sampling procedures. The sample consisted of faculty course coordinators and instructors for nursing fundamentals courses or courses in which SPHM was taught. Internet searches using Google, Wikipedia, and state boards of nursing websites were conducted to yield 2,196 unique baccalaureate and associate’s degree programs of nursing. We located websites for 1,875 programs and used these to find e-mail and postal mail addresses and other contact information for nursing school leaders and administrators, who were asked to identify course coordinators or instructors as survey respondents.

Data collection instrument. The questionnaire, Patient Handling and Movement Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs, was developed by the authors and is based on an instrument used in an earlier study. Scales were developed by experts in the field to ensure content validity, and were pilot tested with a sample of five faculty. All scales had good to excellent internal reliability scores (above 0.70).

The online survey consisted of 64 items in six sections: screening (two items), curriculum (33 items), faculty role (two items), clinical facilities (four items), skills lab equipment (19 items), program characteristics (three items), and one open-ended item. The first two survey items were screens to ensure that the respondent was a faculty member and was either a nursing fundamentals course instructor or someone who had a role in determining fundamentals course content. If the respondent answered “no” to both items, a thank-you message would appear and the survey would close. The 33 curriculum items were subcategorized into content background, curriculum, manual handling content, SPHM content, student evaluation, teaching methods, and vendor support. Response choices were either “yes” or “no.” Of these, three questions asked whether the respondent’s school’s curriculum was based on the NIOSH curriculum module, an evidence-based curriculum developed by that school, or the ANA’s Safe Patient Handling and Mobility standards (or a combination thereof). Twenty items focused on curriculum content. These were subcategorized as background knowledge (two items addressed risk and mechanisms of musculoskeletal injuries), SPHM activities (11 items addressed elements such as ergonomic assessment protocols and use of SPHM equipment), and manual techniques (seven items addressed elements such as the use of gait belts, manual repositioning skills, and body mechanics). Two items addressed student evaluations, including competency evaluations and mastery of SPHM skills. Five items addressed teaching methods, including use of laboratories, case studies, computer-assisted or web-based instruction, and interprofessional teaching involving students from other health sciences. Three items addressed vendor support with regard to teaching students and loaning or donating equipment.

Two items addressed faculty role, asking about SPHM conference attendance and assistance with SPHM implementation at clinical teaching sites. Four items in the clinical facilities section asked about facilities that students visited during the fundamentals course. Specifically, these addressed the availability of SPHM resources (including ceiling-mounted and floor-based lift devices, a safe patient handling coordinator, and a comprehensive SPHM program) in affiliated clinical facilities. The 19 skills lab equipment items included definitions and pictures of different patient handling devices, among them five lateral transfer devices, three lifts, four powered movers, an electronic hospital bed, and an adjustable-height shower chair; and five non-SPHM devices, including gait or transfer belts, nonpowered stretchers, nonpowered adjustable beds, back belts, and draw sheets. Respondents were asked whether a specific device was present, and if it was, how many were available.

The program characteristics section contained three items about the college or university. The first question asked whether the school offered associate’s degrees and baccalaureates in nursing. “Yes” responses prompted the respondent to estimate the number of graduates they had per year from each program. The second item asked whether the school was “private” or “public.” If it was private, respondents were further prompted to note whether it was “for profit” or “not for profit.” The last question asked whether the nursing program was part of an academic medical or health sciences center. If it was, the respondent was prompted to specify what other programs were available, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, medicine, and public health. The final survey question was open-ended and asked, “Is there anything else you would like to share with us about safe patient handling and mobility?”

Data collection procedures. An invitation was sent via e-mail or postal mail to the contact for each school of nursing in the database. This invitation explained the project and asked that the recipient forward the e-mail to the appropriate course coordinator or instructor. It also contained a link to the online survey, which was created using Qualtrics software () that has enhanced security features. Each invitation provided a unique survey access code, which allowed us to ensure there was only one respondent per program.

A statement noting that the survey was an operations activity and not research in the traditional sense was included in the invitation. The initial e-mail or letter further explained that results would be reported in the aggregate, no individual schools would be identified, and no personal health information would be requested. Project personnel contact information was provided, in case recipients had questions. Reminders to nonresponsive recipients were sent two and four weeks after the first invitation. After four weeks, follow-up phone calls were made to the appropriate contact people. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

In addition to inviting survey participation, each invitation also asked the recipient to e-mail documents related to SPHM course content to the research team. These might include course outlines, bibliographies, recommended websites, and any other training materials or course documents. Potential participants were advised that completing the survey and sending documents were voluntary. Programs that returned a usable questionnaire were offered one 20% discount on registration for the 2015 or 2016 SPHM conference sponsored by the Tampa Veterans Administration Research and Education Foundation. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

RESULTS

Sample. Of the 1,875 surveys sent out, 1,617 were delivered and 258 were undeliverable. After subtracting for nonresponses and returned questionnaires that didn’t meet eligibility criteria, the final sample was 228, for a 14.1% response rate. CE: Original Research: Patient Handling and Mobility Course Content: A National Survey of Nursing Programs

Of the respondents’ colleges and universities, 118 (51.8%) offered an associate of arts in nursing degree and 79 (34.6%) offered a bachelor of science in nursing degree. Twelve schools (5.3%) offered both, and 19 (8.3) were missing or did not respond. One hundred forty-nine schools (65.4%) were public and 70 (30.7%) were private (nine participants did not respond). Of the 70 private schools, 28 (40%) were for-profit and 42 (60%) were not-for-profit. Thirty-one (13.6%) of the 228 schools were affiliated with a medical center. These included 11 with a public health program, 10 with a physical therapy program, nine with a medicine program, and nine with an occupational therapy program (4.8%, 4.4%, 3.9%, and 3.9% of the 228 schools, respectively). The state with the most respondents was Texas (30), followed by Missouri (13), and then California, New York, and Virginia (12 each). The states with no respondents were Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, and New Hampshire.

Survey results are presented by survey section: curriculum, faculty role, clinical facilities, and skills lab equipment.

Frequency of SPHM Content in the Responding Nursing Programs (N = 228)

Curriculum. Thirty-three survey items, grouped into seven broad categories, measured curricular content and topics covered in nursing fundamentals programs (see ). Manual handling topics were frequently covered. These included using draw sheets for repositioning patients in bed (97.4%); using body mechanics to reduce injury risk (96.9%); manually repositioning or turning patients in bed (95.6%); manually assisting patients with standing, pivoting, transfers, and ambulation (95.6%); using gait belts for standing, pivoting, transfers, and ambulation (94.3%); performing one- and two-person (or more) manual lifts (85.5%); and performing two-person manual lifts between bed and chair (83.8%).

Only three SPHM content topics—strategies for maintaining patient dignity (98.2%), assessing patient mobility (97.4%), and using patient handling equipment (94.7%)—were reported by 90% or more of the respondents. The content areas least frequently covered, according to respondents, were teaching methods and vendor support.

Faculty role. Of the respondents, 115 were nursing fundamentals course instructors and 113 had a role in determining such course content. Of the 115 fundamentals course instructors, 45 had assisted in implementing SPHM at clinical teaching sites; only eight had attended a national SPHM conference.

Features of the Clinical Facilities Affiliated with the Responding Nursing Programs (N = 228)

Clinical facilities. Survey respondents were asked whether there were ceiling-mounted patient lifting devices, floor-based patient lifting devices, a safe patient handling coordinator, and a comprehensive SPHM program in the clinical facilities students visited during nursing fundamentals courses (see ). Of those responding, a majority reported that either none (37.3%) or some (39.9%) of their facilities had ceiling-mounted lifts; in contrast, all (40.8%) or most (32.5%) facilities reportedly had floor-based lifts. Many respondents didn’t know whether their affiliated clinical facility had a safe patient handling coordinator (47.4%) or said it didn’t have one (23.7%). In response to a question asking whether the affiliated facility had a comprehensive SPHM program—one that included equipment, policy, education, peer leaders, and champions—44.3% said they didn’t know and 15.4% said there was no such program. Another 20.2% reported that their SPHM program had some of these components, 11.4% had most, and 7% had all of them.

Frequency of Skills Lab Equipment in the Responding Nursing Programs (N = 228)

Skills lab equipment. Respondents reported that the skills labs at their schools had a variety of equipment (see ). The most common pieces of equipment were draw sheets (97.4%), electronic hospital beds (powered with electronic controls) (94.7%), gait or transfer belts (92.5%), nonpowered stretchers (76.8%), and lateral transfer sliding boards (69.7%). The least common pieces of equipment were adjustable-height shower chairs (1.3%), powered wheelchair movers (1.3%), and powered transport devices (0.4%).

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first survey of U.S. nursing schools to evaluate the extent to which evidence-based SPHM content and resources were present in curricula. The results revealed that most schools continue to rely heavily on manual handling content, despite evidence that manual handling increases a worker’s risk of musculoskeletal disorders. More than 90% of respondents indicated that curricula included the use of draw sheets for repositioning patients in bed, the use of body mechanics to reduce one’s risk of injury; manual methods for repositioning or turning patients in bed; manual methods for assisting patients with standing, pivoting, transfers, and ambulation; and the use of gait belts for standing, pivoting, transfers, and ambulation. One- and two-person (or more) manual lifts and two-person manual lifts between bed and chair were also commonly taught. Only three SPHM content items—maintaining patient dignity, assessing patient mobility, and using patient handling equipment—were among the top 10 most frequently covered topics.

The least frequently covered content areas were teaching methods and vendor support. Although the NIOSH SPHM curriculum for nursing schools was published in 2009, only half the nursing programs in our study (51.3%) reported incorporating it into their nursing curricula. The use of an evidence-based curriculum is urgently needed if nursing programs are to educate students effectively on SPHM equipment and techniques.

It’s worth noting that the NIOSH curriculum is almost 10 years old. While its implementation remains important and should be encouraged, there are opportunities for improvement. Several best practices have been identified that suggest specific areas for change. First, since vendor support in securing equipment has been identified as a best practice in implemen

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 20% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with My Course Writer
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
Testimonials
See why 10k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Communications
EXCELLENT JOB!!! VERY PLEASED :)
Customer 452483, July 5th, 2021
Communications
came in earlier than I thought and has all the sources listed and cited in APA format, overall all perfect!
Customer 452461, May 24th, 2021
Mathematics
Thank you, great work!
Customer 452483, July 19th, 2021
Psychology
Very clear, and complete information presented. I, thank you for all of your hard work, appreciate it!
Customer 452483, August 9th, 2021
Nursing
Excellent!!! Thank you.
Customer 452487, September 13th, 2021
Psychology
Thank you so much for all of your hard work & help! It’s perfect! Appreciate it!!
Customer 452483, September 11th, 2021
Healthcare Writing & Communications
Thank you so much for all of your hard work! Appreciate it all!
Customer 452483, November 14th, 2021
Introduction to Sociology
Amazing! Thank you so much for your hard work, appreciate it!!
Customer 452483, October 24th, 2021
Education
Thank you for your help
Customer 452555, February 16th, 2022
Psychology
Thank you so much for all of your hard work, appreciate every bit of it!
Customer 452483, September 6th, 2021
Microbiology
Appreciate all of your hard work! Thank you so much!!
Customer 452483, September 14th, 2021
Other
I appreciate the help.
Customer 452567, March 18th, 2022
1159
Customer reviews in total
96%
Current satisfaction rate
2 pages
Average paper length
47%
Customers referred by a friend
OUR GIFT TO YOU
20% OFF your first order
Use a coupon 20OFF and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 20% OFF Order in Chat