Manual patient handling is the most frequently reported risk factor for work related musculoskeletal disorders in healthcare. Patient handling tasks are routinely performed manually without assistive devices and can create awkward postures and high loads for nurses and allied health professionals (AHPs). However, AHPs, notably physiotherapists, also utilize therapeutic handling to facilitate patient movement during rehabilitation.
To comprehensively map the literature surrounding manual patient handling (without assistive devices) by healthcare practitioners.
AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and EMBASE databases were searched. Grey literature was sourced from Google Scholar, EThOS, Open Grey, Health and Safety Executive, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and Work Safe Australia. Literature published in English between 2002 and 2021 was included.
Forty-nine records were included: 36 primary research studies, 1 systematic review and 12 \'other\' including narrative and government reports. Primary research was predominantly observational cross-sectional (n = 21). The most common settings included laboratories (n = 13) and hospitals (n = 13). Seven research questions were identified, with patient handling practices (n = 13) the most common. Nurses formed the largest practitioner population (n = 13) and patients were often simulated (n = 12). Common outcomes included tasks performed (n = 13) and physical demands during patient handling (n = 13).
This comprehensive scoping review identified that most research was observational, investigating nurses in hospitals or laboratories. More research on manual patient handling by AHPs and investigation of the biomechanics involved in therapeutic handling is needed. Further qualitative research would allow for greater understanding of manual patient handling practices within healthcare. CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER.

UNASSIGNED: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are prevalent among immobile bed or wheelchair-reliant individuals who experience prolonged sedentary positions. Pressure relief and frequent repositioning of body posture help to mitigate complications associated with PUs. Adherence with regular repositioning is difficult to maintain due to nursing labour shortages or constraints of in-home caregivers. Manual repositioning, transferring, and lifting of immobile patients are physically demanding tasks for caregivers. This review aimed to explore and categorize these devices, discuss the significant technical challenges that need addressing, and identify potential design opportunities.
UNASSIGNED: In this review, a literature search was conducted using PubMED, Science Direct, Google Scholar and IEEE Xplore databases including studies from 1995 until Feb 2023 with keywords such as pressure ulcer, assistive device, pressure relief, repositioning, transfer, etc. Both commercial and research-level devices were included in the search.
UNASSIGNED: 142 devices or technologies were identified and classified into four main categories that were further subcategorized. Within each category, the devices were investigated in terms of their mechanical design, actuation methods, control strategies, sensing technologies, and level of autonomy. Limitations of current technologies are design complexity, lack of patient comfort, and a lack of autonomy requiring caregivers frequent intervention.
UNASSIGNED: Several devices have been developed to help with prevention and mitigation of PUs. There remain challenges that hinder the widespread accessibility and use of current technologies. Advancements in assistive technologies for pressure ulcer mitigation could lie at the intersection of robotics, sensors, perception, user-centered design, and autonomous systems.
Future advancements in assistive technologies for pressure ulcer mitigation could lie at the intersection of robotics, sensors, perception, user-centered design, and autonomous systems.Most existing technologies for prevention of pressure ulcers are focused on the mechanical advantage rather than user’s needs and preferences. Future designers, engineers, and product developers must be educated to conduct user needs studies concurrently with the development of technology to design the devices based on the user’s needs to ensure a balanced design outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To survey the literature to gain insight into nursing facilitators of and barriers to implementation of positioning/turning strategies to prevent hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PIs) in adult critical care patients.
METHODS: This integrative review surveyed literature across databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library, and through hand searching.
METHODS: Key terms included \"pressure ulcer\" OR \"pressure sore*\" OR \"pressure injur*\" AND \"patient positioning\" OR \"turn\" OR \"turning\" OR \"patient repositioning\" AND \"critical care\" OR \"intensive care unit*\" OR \"inpatient*\" AND \"prevent*.\" Peer reviewed, English language articles published within the past 10 years were included. Inclusion and exclusion criteria narrowed the database yield to 432 articles. After title/abstract and full text review, 11 articles were included.
METHODS: Articles were appraised using the PRISMA flow diagram and the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice appraisal tool. Data was extracted and major themes were identified.
RESULTS: The identified themes were synthesized into factors that facilitated or impeded the nursing implementation of turning/repositioning strategies to prevent hospital-acquired PIs. Facilitators were the use of verbal cues and alerts to improve compliance and nursing education on PI prevention. Barriers to successful implementation were increased nursing workload or burden, lack of staff, and perceived hemodynamic instability in ICU patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions can be tailored to mitigate barriers and reinforce facilitators to improve nursing compliance with repositioning/turning strategies. Increased compliance with these measures could aid in PI prevention in adult ICU patients.

Objectives. The aim of this systematic review was to describe interventions which promote safe patient handling and movement (PHM) among workers in healthcare by reviewing the literature on their effectiveness for work and health-related outcomes. Methods. Databases were searched for studies published during 1997-2018. Measures were operationalized broadly, capturing outcomes of work and health. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with a control group were included. Quality was assessed using evidence-based checklists by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. Results. The systematic review included 10 RCTs and 19 cohort studies. Providing work equipment and training workers is effective: it can increase usage. Training workers to be peer coaches is associated with fewer injuries. Other effective strategies are participatory ergonomics and management engagement in collaboration with workers, facilitating safe PHM. Conclusions. This systematic review suggests that interventions for safe PHM with an impact of health-related outcomes should include access to work equipment, training as well as employer and employee engagement. The additional impact of multifaceted interventions is inconclusive.

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of different repositioning regimens on pressure ulcer (PU) incidence in at-risk adult individuals without existing PUs.
Using systematic review methodology, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, prospective non-RCTs, pre-post-studies and interrupted-time-series studies were considered. Specifically explored was the impact of the frequency of repositioning, use of repositioning systems and use of turning teams. The search was conducted in January 2019, using PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane and EMBASE databases. Data were extracted using a pre-designed extraction tool and analysis was undertaken using RevMan.
A total of 530 records were returned, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Half of studies were conducted in intensive care units (50%). The mean sample size was 629±604 participants. Frequency of repositioning was explored in nine studies. PU incidence was 8% (n=221/2834) for repositioning every 2-3 hours, versus 13% (n=398/3050) for repositioning every 4-6 hours. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.90, p=0.03), suggesting that there is a 25% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of more frequent repositioning. Use of a repositioning system was explored in three studies. PU incidence was 2% (17/865) for the repositioning system, versus 5.5% (51/926) for care without using the repositioning system. The OR was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.05-1.29, p=0.10); this finding was not statistically significant. Use of a turning team was explored in two studies. PU incidence was 11% (n=22/200) with use of a turning team versus 20% (n=40/200) for usual care. The OR was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.27-0.86, p=0.01) suggesting that there is a 51% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of use of a turning team. Using GRADE appraisal, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low.
The results of this systematic review indicate that more frequent repositioning and use of a turning team reduce PU incidence. However, given the low certainty of evidence, results should be interpreted with caution.

To identify and critically evaluate methods for proning patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Proning improves blood oxygenation and survival rates in these patients but is not commonly performed due to the difficulty of the procedure.
An academic literature review, internet video search, and consultation with five subject-matter experts was performed to identify known methods for proning. Evaluation of each method considered the number of healthcare workers required, physical stresses on staff, risk of adverse events to patients, and equipment cost and availability.
Several variations of manual techniques and-lift assisted techniques were identified in addition to a specialized proning bed. Manual methods require more healthcare workers, higher physical stresses, and greater risk of adverse events than lift-assisted methods or the proning bed.
Both the specialized proning bed and a lift-assisted method using straps largely eliminated manual forces required for proning while allowing for a controlled lowering and positioning of the patient.
This review will guide practitioners to the most suitable methods for proning patients in the ICU.

Lifting or carrying loads or working while the trunk is in a bent position are well established risk factors for the development of disc disease of the lumbar spine (LDD). Patient handling is associated with certain hazardous activities, which can result in exposure to heavy loads and high pressure for the discs of the lumbar spine of the nurses performing these tasks. The purpose of this review was to examine the occurrence of work-related LDD among health personnel (HP) with occupational exposure to patient handling activities in comparison to un-exposed workers. A systematic literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. A meta-analysis of odds ratios (OR) was conducted by stratifying for various factors. Five studies reported a higher prevalence for LDD among nurses and geriatric nurses (11.3-96.3%) compared to all controls (3.78-76.47%). Results of the meta-analysis showed a significantly increased OR for LDD among HP compared to all controls (OR 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41, 4.26). In particular, the results of this review suggest that nurses have a higher probability of developing disc herniation than office workers.

Novel developments in the robotics field have produced systems that can support person wheelchair transfers, maximize safety and reduce caregiver burden. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe these systems, their usability (or satisfaction), the context for which they have been or can be used and how they have been evaluated to determine evidence for their effectiveness.
Available research on Person Transfer Assist Systems (PTAS) was systematically gathered using similar standards to the PRISMA guidelines. The search terms were derived from common terms and via exploring similar review articles. Initial search terms displayed 1330 articles and by using the inclusion/exclusion criteria 96 articles were selected for abstract review. After full- text reviewing 48 articles were included.
29 articles concerned research in robotic transfer systems, 10 articles used both ceiling and floor-mounted lifts and 9 articles used only floor-mounted lifts as an intervention/control group. The results of this analysis identified a few usability evaluations for robotic transfer prototypes, especially ones comparing prototypes to existing marketed devices.
Robotic device research is a recent development within assistive technology. Whilst usability evaluations provided evidence that a robotic device will provide better service to the user, the sample number of subjects used are minimal in comparison to any of the intervention/control group articles. Experimental studies between PTASs are required to support technological advancements. Caregiver injury risk has been the focus for most of the comparison articles; however, few articles focus on the implications to the person.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCeiling mounted lifts are preferred over floor-based lifts due to lower injury rates.Many robotic transfer systems have been developed; however, there is a paucity of quantitative and qualitative studies.Based on the results of this review, rehabilitation settings are recommended to use ceiling over floor assist systems, and it is recommended to provide training on using devices to assist with patient transfers to lower the risk of injuries.

Background: Safe patient handling practices reduce injury risk for healthcare workers (HCW) and patients, but may conflict with goals of rehabilitation and person-centred care by minimizing (a) active participation in transfers and (b) autonomy and dignity while using mechanical lifts. Active assist transfer devices (AATDs) have potential to address both safety and support needs for appropriate clients.Purpose: What is the scope and nature of the evidence to support the use of AATD for improving transfer safety for patients and caregivers in both hospital and community settings?Methods: Scoping review of peer-reviewed and Gray literature, using systematic search strategies and multiple reviewers for identifying papers and extracting data.Findings: Twenty-nine peer-reviewed publications, and 12 other documents (policy, technical) were included in the review. Half focused on HCW safety in the hospital setting, with only seven addressing patient safety in the community. Generally, literature was of low quality, with no controlled trials to support the benefit of this equipment, and often represented a nursing care perspective. However, positive outcomes reported included safety, satisfaction, and equipment utilization.Implications: There is a need for rigorous research on use of AATDs in the community comparing rehabilitation outcomes across other forms of transfer equipment. Other important targets include injury risk for family caregivers, and potential to support early discharge. At present, utilization of AATDs within the rehabilitation field will continue to rely on best judgement of the care team. Implementation of AATDs should be considered a compelling target for practice-based research and quality improvements.Implications for rehabilitationThe use of active assist transfer devices is associated with their availability in the in-patient hospital setting.The use of active assist transfer devices is associated with positive patient experience, such as increased patient satisfaction and dignity. Improved patient adherence and cooperation with healthcare workers during mobilization and rehabilitation may follow.Most current evidence is focused on caregiver safety outcomes and is in support of decreased injury rates with increased active assist transfer device use. There is a limited amount of evidence focusing on the rehabilitation outcomes with active assist transfer device use.With current evidence, the use of AATDs should be used at the discretion of the care team.

The physical load ensuing from the repositioning and moving of patients puts health care workers at risk of musculoskeletal complaints. Technical equipment developed to aid with patient handling should reduce physical strain and workload; however, the efficacy of these aids in preventing musculoskeletal disorders and complaints is still unclear. A systematic review of controlled intervention studies was conducted to examine if the risk of musculoskeletal complaints and disorders is reduced by technical patient handling equipment. MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®) were searched using terms for nursing, caregiving, technical aids, musculoskeletal injuries, and complaints. Randomized controlled trials and controlled before-after studies of interventions including technical patient handling equipment were included. The titles and abstracts of 9554 publications and 97 full-texts were screened by two reviewers. The qualitative synthesis included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ten controlled before-after studies. A meta-analysis of four studies resulted in a pooled risk ratio for musculoskeletal injury claims (post-intervention) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.90). Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was poor and the results often based on administrative injury claim data, introducing potential selection bias. Interventions with technical patient handling aids appear to prevent musculoskeletal complaints, but the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE approach ranged from low to very low.