Objective: To determine whether transferring equipment designed to assist a carer when moving someone who is able to take some weight through their legs is likely to affect the risk of back problems in the carer.
Design: Twelve pieces of equipment were tested by nurses transferring patients from commode to wheelchair and vice versa, and from wheelchair to bed and vice versa. Video recordings were taken of each transfer and freeze-frame pictures at the moment of greatest load were analysed. Compressive disc force was deduced, using a biomechanical model, from the weights of the patient and nurse and measurements of anatomical distances and angles.
Setting: The Sir Walter Puckey Gait Laboratory, in the Rehabilitation Research Unit, University of Southampton.
Subjects: Six female trained nurses with no recent history of hernia, back pain or pregnancy during the previous six months were recruited to use the equipment. Two female patients were chosen from those volunteering and screened for stroke, confusion and unusual footwear. The patients were able to partially weight-bear and were used to being transferred.
Results: The results indicate that the critical value of 3.4 kN at the L5/S1 disc (specified by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) was not exceeded when using transferring equipment.
Conclusion: In this study, loading on the spine during transferring tasks with or without equipment was not considered harmful when good technique was employed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clinical Standards Advisory Group. Back pain. London: HMSO, 1994.
2.
Health and Safety Executive. Manual handling guidance on regulations, L23. London: HMSO, 1992.
3.
EC Council Directive 90/269. Minimum health and safety requirements for handling loads where there is a risk of back injury for workers. 1990
4.
The Health and Safety at Work Act. London: HMSO, 1974.
5.
Garg A, Owen B, Baller D, Banaag J. A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. Ergonomics1991; 34: 289–312.
6.
Garg A, Owen B, Baller D, Banaag J. A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: wheelchair to shower chair and shower chair to wheelchair. Ergonomics1991; 34: 407–419.
7.
NIOSH. Work practices guide for manual lifting. NIOSH technical report no. 81–122. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1981.
8.
Royal College of Nursing Advisory Panel for Back Pain in Nurses. Code of practice for the handling of patients. London: Royal College of Nursing, 1992.
9.
Nachemson A. The in‘uence of spinal movements on the lumbar intra discal pressure and on the tensile stresses on the annulus fibrosis. Acta Orthop Scand1963; 33: 183–207.
10.
Nachemson A. Towards a better understanding of low-back pain: a review of the mechanics of the lumbar disc. Rheumatol Rehabil1975; 14: 129–143.
11.
Nachemson A. The load on lumbar discs in different positions of the body. Clin Orthop1966; 45: 107–122.
12.
Jager M, Luttman A. Biomechanical analysis and assessment of lumbar stress during load lifting using a dynamic 19-segment human model. Ergonomics1989; 32: 93–112.
13.
Marras WS, Sommerich CM. A three-dimensional motion model of loads on the lumbar spine. Hum Factors1991; 33: 123–149.
14.
Waikar A, Lee K, Aghazadeh F, Parks C. Evaluating lifting tasks using subjective and biomechanical estimates of stress at the lower back. Ergonomics1991; 34: 33–47.
15.
Waters TR, Putz-Anderson, Garg A, Fine LJ. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics1993; 36: 749–776.
16.
McGill SM, Norman RW. Dynamically and statically determined low back moments during lifting. J Biomech1985; 18: 877–885.
17.
Bush-Joseph C, Schipplein O, Andersson GBJ, Andriacchi TP. In‘uence of dynamic factors on the lumbar spine moment in lifting. Ergonomics1988; 31: 211–216.
18.
Chaffin DB. A computerized biomechanical model – development of and use in studying gross body actions. J Biomech1969; 2: 429–441.
19.
Mientjes MIV, Norman RW, Wells RP, McGill SM. Assessment of an EMG-based method for continuous estimates of low back compression during asymmetrical occupational tasks. Ergonomics1999; 42: 868–879.
20.
Waters TR, Baron SL, Kemmlert K. Accuracy of measurements for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Appl Ergonom1998; 29: 433–438.
21.
National Back Pain Association. The guide to the handling of patients: introducing a safer handling policy, fourth edition. Middlesex: National Back Pain Association, 1998.
22.
Owen BD, Garg A. Patient handling tasks perceived to be most stressful by nursing assistants. In: Mital A ed. Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety. London: Taylor and Francis, 1989: 775–781.
23.
Garg A, Chaffin DB. A biomechanical computerized simulation of human strength. Am Inst Indust Eng Trans1975; 7: 1–15.
24.
Wax C, Flenghi D, Meyer J-P. Comparison de deux techniques de lever de charge: analyse biomecanique et couts physiologiques. Le Travail Humain1987; 50-50.
25.
Medical Devices Agency. Moving and transferring equipment: a comparative evaluation. Disability Equipment Assessment Report no. A19. Norwich: HMSO, 1996.
26.
Kee D, Chung MK. Comparison of prediction models for the compression force on the lumbosacral disc. Ergonomics1996; 39: 1419–1429.
