This article describes a qualitative study which aimed to explore the implications of the implementation of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations (MHOR) 1992 for the patient. Ten participants, where the use of a hoist was indicated in view of the MHOR 1992, were interviewed individually in their own homes. Through this method, those aspects influencing acceptance or rejection of the use of a hoist were established and the meanings of the experiences for those individuals were clarified. The results of the study have implications for practice. For some participants, the use of a hoist involved physical, social and psychological levels of response. To implement MHOR 1992 successfully, these issues must be acknowledged and addressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrewinM (1995) A qualitative research study into the use of manually operated mobile hoists and the need for tailored ‘job aids’. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 2 (4), 165–73.
2.
BurgessR (1993) In the field, an Introduction to field research. London: Routledge.
3.
CatchpoleN (1995) Up and away. Therapy Weekly, 22 (1), 11.
4.
ColeA (1992) Preparing for change. Nursing Times, 88 (41), 30–31.
5.
CorlettENLloydPVTarlingCTroupJDGWrightB (1992) The guide to handling of patients. London: National Back Pain Association in collaboration with the Royal College of Nursing.
6.
DepoyEGitlinL (1994) Introduction to research. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby.
7.
FosterM (1992) Compensatory frame of reference. In: TurnerAFosterMJohnsonS, eds. Occupational therapy and physical dysfunction: principles, skills and practice. 3rd ed.Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
8.
GargAOwenBBellerDBanaagJ (1991) A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks. Wheelchair to shower chair and shower chair to wheelchair. Ergonomics, 34 (4), 407–19.
9.
Great Britain Parliament (1992) The Manual Handling Operations Regulations. London: HMSO.
10.
GoldthorpeJ (1980) Social mobility and class structure in modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 44–48.
11.
Health and Safety Commission (1992) Guidance on manual handling of loads in the health service. London: HSC.
12.
HenwoodM (1994) Making a difference. Implementation of the community care reforms two years on. London: Nuffield Institute for Health.
13.
HickmanAM (1995) Why hoists are ‘flavour of the month’. Occupational Therapy News, 3 (5), 18–19.
KielhofnerGNelsonG (1983) A study of patient motivation and cooperation/participation in occupational therapy. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 3 (1), 35–46.
17.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. An expanded source book. 2nd ed.London: Sage.
18.
MooreW (1993) The last straw. Nursing Times, 89 (22), 29–30.
19.
MoyA (1987) Which aid? in: BumphreyEE, ed. Occupational therapy in the community. Cambridge: Woodhead-Faulkner, 74–87.
20.
PheasantSStubbsD (1991) Lifting and handling: an ergonomic approach. London: National Back Pain Association.
21.
PolgarSThomasSA (1992) Introduction to research in the health services. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
22.
RudestramKENewtonRR (1992) Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process. London: Sage.
23.
SamuelsRC (1991) Getting patients to use adaptive equipment. Practical Caring, Oct, 29–30.
24.
Secretary of State (1984) Data Protection Act. London: HMSO.
25.
Secretaries of State for Health, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland (1989a) Working for patients. Cm555. London: HMSO.
26.
Secretaries of State for Health, Social Security, Wales and Scotland (1989b) Caring for people. Cm 849. London: HMSO.
27.
SteedR (1994) Staff duty to use hoists. Nursing Times, 90 (47), 27.
28.
TurnerT (1992) The cost of caring. Nursing Times, 88 (41), 26–29.
29.
HammellKR Whalley (1994) Establishing objectives in occupational therapy practice, part 1. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57 (1), 9–14.
30.
WoodsA (1994) Do hoists kill people? (Letter). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57 (11), 448–49.
31.
YerxaEJ (1991) Seeking a relevant, ethical and realistic way of knowing for occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45 (3), 199–204.
