Date of this Version
International Journal of Nursing Studies 43 (2006) 717–733; doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.09.004
Problem statement: Nurses have one of the highest rates of work-related musculoskeletal injury of any profession. Over the past 30 years, efforts to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders in nurses have been largely unsuccessful.
Specific aims: The primary goal of this program was to create safer working environments for nursing staff who provide direct patient care. Our first objective was to design and implement a multifaceted program that successfully integrated evidence-based practice, technology, and safety improvement. The second objective was to evaluate the impact of the program on injury rate, lost and modified work days, job satisfaction, self-reported unsafe patient handling acts, level of support for program, staff and patient acceptance, program effectiveness, costs, and return on investment.
Intervention: The intervention included six program elements: (1) Ergonomic Assessment Protocol, (2) Patient Handling Assessment Criteria and Decision Algorithms, (3) Peer Leader role, ‘‘Back Injury Resource Nurses’’, (4) State-of-the-art Equipment, (5) After Action Reviews, and (6) No Lift Policy.
Methods: A pre-/post design without a control group was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient care ergonomics program on 23 high risk units (19 nursing home care units and 4 spinal cord injury units) in 7 facilities. Injury rates, lost work days, modified work days, job satisfaction, staff , and patient acceptance, program effectiveness, and program costs/savings were compared over two nine month periods: pre-intervention (May 2001–January 2002) and post-intervention (March 2002–November 2002). Data were collected prospectively through surveys, weekly process logs, injury logs, and cost logs.
Results: The program elements resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the rate of musculoskeletal injuries as well as the number of modified duty days taken per injury. While the total number of lost workdays decreased by 18% post-intervention, this difference was not statistically significant. There were statistically significant increases in two subscales of job satisfaction: professional status and tasks requirements. Self-reports by nursing staff revealed a statistically significant decrease in the number of ‘unsafe’ patient handling practices performed daily. Nurses ranked program elements they deemed to be ‘‘extremely effective’’: equipment was rated as most effective (96%), followed by No Lift Policy (68%), peer leader education program (66%), ergonomic assessment protocol (59%), patient handling assessment criteria and decision algorithms (55%), and lastly after action reviews (41%). Perceived support and interest for the program started at a high level for managers and nursing staff and remained very high throughout the program implementation. Patient acceptance was moderate when the program started but increased to very high by the end of the program. Although the ease and success of program implementation initially varied between and within the facilities, after six months there was strong evidence of support at all levels. The initial capital investment for patient handling equipment was recovered in approximately 3.75 years based on annual post-intervention savings of over $200,000/year in workers’ compensation expenses and cost savings associated with reduced lost and modified work days and worker compensation.
Conclusions: This multi-faceted program resulted in an overall lower injury rate, fewer modified duty days taken per injury, and significant cost savings. The program was well accepted by patients, nursing staff, and administrators. Given the significant increases in two job satisfaction subscales (professional status and task requirements), it is possible that nurse recruitment and retention could be positively impacted.