PREMUS 2025: 12th International Scientific Conference on the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders
Risk assessment of workers’ exposure to physical load in patient handling and movement at healthcare workplaces
2Linköping University, Occupational Medicin, Linköpings University Hospital, Region Östergötlandl, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Unit of Clinical Medicine, Linköping, Sweden
3Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
4Region Jönköping, Occupational Safety and Health Care, Jönköping, Sweden
5Regional management office, Linköping, Sweden
6Örebro University, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Center, Örebro, Sweden
Text
Introduction: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are common among healthcare workers (HCWs) but might be prevented by risk assessment, promote the use of assistive devices and further promotion of occupational safety and health. The aim of this feasibility study was to investigate if the risk assessment instrument TilThermometer can be used to identify risk profiles of physical exposure in HCWs working with patient handling and movement (PHM). Further aims were to describe HCWs’ perceptions and experiences of using the TilThermometer.
Methods: In total, 54 HCWs from 17 hospital and nursing home care units participated and performed risk assessments with the TilThermometer. Data collected from the risk assessments were used to identify risk profiles of physical exposure. HCWs’ experiences of using the TilThermometer were collected from activity logs and analysed qualitatively. Three questionnaires were used to assess perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the risk assessment, and eight questions were used to assess perceived usefulness.
Results: The TilThermometer was used at the care units by assessing each care recipient in relation to mobility groups, and when aggregating the data at a group level, a summarized risk profile for the care unit could be generated. Risk for physical exposure was reported as high for two work tasks; no care unit used the high-low adjustable seat when showering care recipients sitting down, and 13% used the recommended assistive devices when putting compression stockings on. However, 99% used high-low adjustable assistive devices when caring and bathing care recipients lying down. The TilThermometer was, on a five-point scale, perceived as acceptable (mean 3.93), appropriate (mean 3.9), and feasible (mean 3.97). These scores are in line with questions evaluating usefulness.
Discussion: The HCWs in the present study described using the TilThermometer as user friendly, especially after being familiar with the instrument. The risk assessment instrument enabled them to reflect on care recipients’ functioning and their need for assistive devices, and provided an overview of HCWs’ physical load related to PHM at the unit. However, there were also descriptions of difficulties in assessing care recipients’ functioning, and categorization in some of the mobility groups. In the present study, the TilThermometer was implemented on a limited scale to provide insights for future research.
Conclusion: The study concludes that the TilThermometer is effective in assessing risks associated with physical exposure during patient handling and movement in hospital and nursing home care units. The risk assessment provided risk profiles with potential to contribute to care units’ development of a safe PHM practice. The HCWs experiences of risk assessment using the TilThermometer indicate that interventions for safe PHM incorporating the instrument may be adopted by HCWs at care units.
