Ant9 Patient Handling Supplement 821a - LOW PDF

Supplement to
www.AmericanNurseToday.com
September 2014
Current
Topics in
Safe
Patient
Handling
and
Mobility
This supplement was funded by an
unrestricted educational grant from
Hill-Rom. Content of this supplement
was developed independently of
the sponsor and all articles have
undergone peer review according to
American Nurse Today standards.
Safe patient handling and

mobility: A call to action
Much more must be done to enhance safety for
patients and caregivers.
By Melissa A. Fitzpatrick, MSN, RN, FAAN
confluence of demographic
and economic trends is
pushing us toward the perfect storm:
Todays nursing workforce is
aging. The average age of the
American registered nurse is
44.6.
The patients we serve are heavier than ever.
Experts predict increases in patient acuity, age, and comorbidity.
Staffing issues continue to cause
concern. Some experts project
the United States will be short
about 250,000 nurses over the
next 10 to 12 years.
Economic imperatives require us
to move patients through the
healthcare delivery system more
quickly to shorten stays and enhance financial reimbursement.
Any one of these trends is

cause for concern. All of them
occurring at once is cause for
alarmand a call to action.
Imagine older nurses lifting heavier, older, and sicker patients. Obviously, all parties are at greater
risk for injury.
In too many cases, nurses continue to deliver care the way weve
always done it. For many, this
means doing the heavy lifting needed to mobilize patients manually in
an attempt to avoid the many sequelae of immobilitydecreased
cardiovascular, pulmonary, integumentary, and psychological functioning, to name a few.
While the intentions of manual

patient mobilization may be honorable, the effects are far from optimal for all involved. Theres no such
thing as safe lifting when we use
our bodies as the lifting mechanism.
Old-school teachings about safe
body mechanics have been proven
invalid, and many of us must unlearn them. As nurses, we must
change our mindset and get in the
habit of using safe patient handling
and mobility (SPHM) technology to
keep both our patients and ourselves safe from harm.
How many times have you or a
colleague suffered an injury to
your back, shoulder, or both during
manual patient handling? How
many colleagues have we lost to
our profession because of a careerending injury? How many millions
of dollars are spent on workers
compensation claims for employees
whove had patient handling and
mobility injuries? Caregiver injuries
adversely affect staff morale,
staffing levels, and, ultimately, patient safety. Such injuries have
made headlines in many communities and are top of mind for healthcare leaders. Legislatures have taken on the issue, and in 2013 the
American Nurses Association
(ANA) supported a federal bill to
eliminate manual patient handling,
including lifting, transferring, and
repositioning patients. That same
year, ANA published national interprofessional standards to guide
caregiving teams of nurses, physical therapists, nursing assistants,
September 2014
transportation orderlies, and others

in implementing the standards and
creating a culture of safety in their
organizations. However, only 11
states have enacted SPHM laws
and these laws vary significantly.
Much more work needs to be done
to enhance safety for patients and
caregivers.
This special report provides a
helpful resource to caregivers as
they continue to practice SPHMor
to embark on their SPHM journey if
theyre not already on it. National
experts share their perspectives and
best practices to align people,
processes, and technology to set
the course for action. Id like to
thank all of the authors whove contributed to this special report for
sharing their expertise and strategies, which we hope will be implemented where you work. Please
take these best practices to heart
and engage your colleagues to do
the same. And please join all of us
at Hill-Rom on our mission to ensure
SPHM. Much is at stake, and nothing is more important than your
health and well-beingto enable
you to continue doing what only
nurses can do. Weve never needed nurses more than we do now.
Selected references
American Nurses Association. Safe Patient Handling and Mobility: Interprofessional National
Standards. Silver Spring, MD: Author; 2013.
Buerhaus PI, Auerbach DI, Staiger DO. The recent
surge in nurse employment: causes and implications. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):w657-68.
Melissa A. Fitzpatrick is vice-president and chief

clinical officer at Hill-Rom.
Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility
Current Topics in Safe Patient

Handling and Mobility
CONTENTS
1
Safe patient handling and mobility: A call to action

By Melissa A. Fitzpatrick
The way weve always done it is no longer an acceptable rationale for manual patient handling and
mobilization. We must change our mindset and embrace appropriate technology to keep ourselves and
our patients safe from harm.
Elements of a successful safe

patient handling and mobility
program
By John Celona
To build a successful program, identify

your facilitys specific needs, design the
program, obtain leaders and nurses
commitment, and provide effective
education and training.
Transforming the culture:

The key to hardwiring early
mobility and safe patient
handling
By Kathleen M. Vollman and Rick Bassett
Accomplishing early patient mobility and safe handling requires a culture change, deliberate focus, staff
education, and full engagement.
11
Standards to protect
nurses from handling
and mobility injuries
By Amy Garcia
Learn about ANAs

interprofessional national
standards on safe patient
handling and mobility,
developed by a panel of
interdisciplinary experts.
September 2014
Supplement to
13
September 2014
Implementing a mobility assessment

tool for nurses
By Teresa Boynton, Lesly Kelly, and Amber Perez
The authors describe a nurse-driven tool you

can use at the bedside to evaluate your
patients mobility level and guide decisions
about patient lifts, slings, and other
technology.
17
The sliding patient: How to respond

to and prevent migration in bed
By Neal Wiggermann
Pulling patients up in bed carries a high risk

of caregiver injury. Find out how to prevent
patient migration and manage it safely when
it occurs.
20
Prepare to care for patients of size

By Dee Kumpar
Nearly a third of patient-handling injuries

involve bariatric patients. Handling and
mobilizing these patients safely requires skill
and specialized technology.
23
Developing a sling management system

By Jan DuBose
Disposable or launderable slings? In-house or outsourced laundering? These and other key decisions
require input from all departments involved.
26
Making the business case for a safe patient

handling and mobility program
By John Celona
The author explains three approaches to justifying a

safe patient handling and mobility program and presents
a decision-analysis case study.
September 2014
Elements of a
successful safe patient
handling and mobility
program
Program success hinges on leaders and nurses
commitment.
By John Celona, BS, JD
ince safe patient handling

and mobility (SPHM) efforts
began more than a decade
ago, data show dramatic reductions in caregiver injuries after a
safe patient handling and mobility
(SPHM) program is implemented.
So why doesnt every healthcare
facility have one?
The first reason is cost. An
SPHM program requires a substantial outlay. Second, SPHM
program results have been inconsistent. Tales abound of equipment
bought but not used because its
too much trouble to fetch it from
the closet, or because no one can
locate the necessary sling. Finally,
SPHM program value costs are
clear but benefits are hard to
quantify.
This article addresses these issues by laying out the basic elements of a successful SPHM program. These elements can be
divided into two broad categoriesdetermining out what you
need and making it happen. (See
Simplifying the equation.)
Determining what you

need
Start by estimating how many patients on a given unit are totally
September 2014
Simplifying the equation

dependent on the nurse to lift or
mobilize them. Then estimate how
many patients on the unit need
partial assistance with mobility activities, such as toileting or moving
from bed to chair.
For each patient category, estimate the numbers and types of
mobilization each will need over
the course of an average stay.
Types of mobilization include
boosting, turning, moving from
bed to chair, assisting with ambulation, and so on. For these categories and frequencies of mobilization tasks, figure out how much
and what types of equipment are
needed to eliminate variation in
practice and standardize how to
safely accomplish the task.
In practice, most people develop rules of thumb or use intuition
and experience rather than calculating the four types of information
described above. Also, vendors of
handling and mobility equipment
have experience in determining required equipment.
Ive observed three different approaches to supplying the equipment needed to mobilize patients:
installing overhead liftsceiling
tracks to which lifting slings are
attached
using portable liftsfloormounted structures for mobilizing patients that can be moved
around as needed
going the equipment light
routeusing a low-tech system
that combines slide sheets, limb
lifters, and slide boards to mobilize patients instead of using
ceiling-mounted or portable
floor lifts.
Any of these approaches will
work to mobilize patients and
reduce caregiver injuries if the
healthcare organization can get
staff to use them.
This diagram shows in broad strokes how a healthcare organization can develop and implement a safe patient handling and mobility program.
Determining what you need
Compliance rate
When designing and implementing an SPHM program, the compliance rate is the key variable an
organization is driving. The compliance rate is defined as the number of mobilizations for which
SPHM equipment is actually used,
divided by the number of mobilizations for which it should be used.
The compliance rate is critical because it drives program benefits.
A rate of 0% means the equipment
is never used and isnt producing
benefits. A rate of 100% means
caregivers are using the equipment
every time they should be, creating the maximum possible value
from the SPHM program.
A small level of investment in
SPHM equipment makes little difference in the compliance rate or
program results. Without the right
amount or type of equipment
September 2014
available, an organization cant

standardize a new mobilization
process, so the equipment gets
used for relatively few mobilizations. With higher investment levels, using the equipment becomes
part of caregivers routine, so the
compliance rate goes up.
Making it happen
A successful SPHM program requires leadership commitment,
nursing commitment, and an education and training plan. Leadership commitment is needed to approve SPHM equipment purchase,
design of training plans, and time
away from duty for training. Such
commitment is best obtained by
creating a business case to describe the proposed SPHM program and quantify its total costs
and benefits, including return on
investment (ROI). (See Making
the business case for a safe patient handling and mobility program in this report.)
The entire nursing staff must be
committed, especially the chief
nursing officer, who has to approve the time required for staff
training and education. Nursing
commitment should be easy to get
if the business case has identified
the programs potential for reducing caregiver injuries, increasing
staff availability for duty due to injury reduction, and improving
nursing retention and satisfaction.
An education and training plan
addresses which SPHM technology is purchased, installed, and deployed and when and where its
installed and deployed; who gets
trained, at what level of training,
and when training takes place;
and how program data will be
tracked and monitored to determine if its achieving the intended
results. In many cases, training accounts for half or more of total
SPHM program costs.
Levels of expertise
Three levels of expertise in using
SPHM equipment and methods exist:
A facility champion can train
the trainers and aid program
design and revision (adjusting
the deployed equipment or
training if needed). To be effective, this person needs both extensive training and experience.
A super user (such as a unit
peer leader at the Veterans
Health Administration) can train
other caregivers in the unit and
answer questions. Reaching this
level of expertise requires indepth training.
A general caregiver knows
how to use SPHM technology
and methods but may not be
qualified to train others.
Why feedback is important

Feedback is crucial for tracking
and monitoring the SPHM program
to determine how well its working.
Successful programs use two types
of feedback. Compliance rate
monitoring gives some reassurance
that caregivers actually are using
SPHM technology when they
should be. Such monitoring may
be done indirectly by requiring annual staff certification to ensure
they know how to use the equipment. Direct methods include observing the unit to see if caregivers
use appropriate SPHM methods.
Some newer types of equipment
come with devices to measure how
many times theyre used.
Program result monitoring, on
the other hand, depends on SPHM
program goals. These vary by
facility but may include reduced
caregiver injuries from patient
handling, decreases in pressure
ulcers and patient falls, increased
patient and staff satisfaction, and
improved staff retention. The business case and ROI for the SPHM
program should identify which
program results create the most
value. Methods for monitoring
these results should be created if
they dont already exist.
Most SPHM programs monitor
workers compensation costs from
caregiver injuries related to patient handling. Usually, this necessitates connecting incidence data
on the types and causes of injuries
(such as on the Occupational
Safety and Health Administrations
Form 300) with costs associated
with those injuries (found in the
workers compensation system).
Any equipment strategy (overhead lifts, portable lifts, equipment light or a combination) can
drive a high compliance rate and
favorable program results. But us-
September 2014
ing more efficient lifting methods

and equipment might yield additional program benefits from time
savings. Stanford University Medical Center compared the average
time for a chair-to-bed transfer
using ceiling lifts vs. portable
lifts. On average, a ceiling-lift
transfer was completed before the
portable-lift transfer even began.
These data were used to justify
ceiling lift installation in Stanfords
new hospital.
Monitoring SPHM program results and comparing them against
the potential results quantified in
the business case are crucial for
ensuring the program is working
as designed and the organization
is realizing the projected ROI.
When results vary from the ranges
identified in the business case, the
cause must be identified and remedial action must be taken.
Understanding and implementing the essential elements of an
SPHM program will help you ensure that your organizations program is successful and can truly
achieve better outcomes for care8
givers and patients.
A valuable resource for establishing a
safe patient handling and mobility program is Implementation Guide to the Safe
Patient Handling and Mobility Interprofessional National Standards, available at
www.nursesbooks.org/SPHM-Package.
Selected references
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health
Administration. VHA Directive 2010-032. Safe
Patient Handling Program and Facility Design.
June 28, 2010. www.va.gov/vhapublications/
ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2260. Accessed
July 3, 2014.
Hodgson MJ, Matz MW, Nelson A. Patient handling in the Veterans Health Administration: facilitating change in the health care industry. J
Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(10):1230-7.
John Celona is a principal at Decision Analysis

Associates, LLC, in San Carlos, California. He is
the author of Decision Analysis for the Professional, 4th ed.
Transforming the
culture: The key to
hardwiring early
mobility and safe
patient handling
Culture change requires deliberate focus, staff
education, and full engagement.
By Kathleen M. Vollman, MSN, RN, CCNS, FCCM, FAAN, and Rick Bassett, MSN, RN, APRN, ACNS-BC, CCRN
arly mobility in the intensive

care unit (ICU) is critical to a
patients short- and long-term
recovery. Studies show early mobility programs result in more ventilator-free days, fewer skin injuries,
shorter ICU and hospital stays, reduced delirium duration, and improved physical functioning.
But accomplishing early mobility requires significant coordination, commitment, and physical effort by the multidisciplinary team.
How do we balance the benefits
of early mobilization against the
potential risk of staff or patient injury during the mobilization activity? Part of the solution to ensuring
safe mobilization of critically ill
patients is to view mobilization
along a continuum based on patient readiness, progression based
on goals, strategies to prevent
complications, and assessment of
activity tolerance. This view keeps
safety at the forefront.
Within the ICU, barriers to early mobility may include clinicians
knowledge deficits and fears, insufficient human and equipment
resources, patients physiologic instability, lack of emphasis on the

value and priority of mobilizing
patients, and the ICU culture related to mobility. A 2014 international survey of early mobilization
practices in 833 ICUs found only
27% had formal early mobility
protocols, 21% had adopted mo-
September 2014
bility practices without a protocol,

and 52% hadnt incorporated early mobility into routine care practices. Barriers to implementation of
mobility initiatives included competing staffing priorities, insufficient physical therapy staff, and
concern about patient and caregiver injury. The study found that a
standardized protocol may promote successful implementation of
an early mobility program.
Learning progression for patient mobility

This diagram shows the four stages of staff learning regarding early patient mobility and
safe patient handling.
Conscious
Right type of support, right time

To progress to the next level: Educate regarding
evidence and progressive mobility continuum,
use scenarios to build problem-solving skills
around contingencies and high-risk patients.
Leverage physical therapy in teaching nurses
specific skills.
STAGE 2: Conscious,
unskilled
STAGE 3: Conscious,
skilled
I care now, but I feel clueless.
I know but need support and

extra time to execute.
2 3
Subconscious
Consciousness
Staff are receptive to

progressive mobility concepts.
Staff may be fearful of process
and risks.
Staff are ready to put progressive

mobility into daily practice.
Staff are motivated by sense of
efficacy and success/failure
experiences.
To progress to the next level:

Overcome staff's emotional and
intellectual barriers by using
storytelling and evidence,
engage in discussions and
address positive/negative aspects
of immobility. Include sources
(evidence and experience)
outside the organization as well.
To progress to the next level:

Coach and mentor staff during
execution. Encourage through
failure experiences (such as
patient not tolerating mobility),
and build sense of competence
by recognizing successes.
STAGE 1: Subconscious,
unskilled
STAGE 4: Subconscious,
skilled
I dont know why I should care

about patient mobility.
I am skilled and can help others.
1 4
Staff are unclear on purpose

behind progressive mobility.
Old paradigms and
assumptions around immobility
are present.
Unskilled
Staff skillfully put progressive

mobility into daily practice.
Further staff learning is
enhanced by teaching and
mentoring others.
To support process:
educate staff regarding
how to effectively
mentor, coach.
Exapnd role:
storyteller, champion,
and mentor.
Skilled
2010 Brandwene Associates
September 2014
Importance of a culture
change
Sustaining any clinical improvement initiative requires an organizational culture change. Baseline
assessment of the current culture as
well as early engagement of team
members is the starting point. In
2012, the authors led a VHA, Inc.
critical care improvement team collaborative of 13 ICUs from eight
organizations to implement safe
and effective early patient mobility
in the ICU. Efforts focused on
elements central to sustainable
change. First, team members
acquired key knowledge to understand why ICU mobility is important. Next, strategies for organizational, leadership, and clinical staff
engagement were discussed. To
promote the transition in practice
and the required culture change,
ICU clinicians needed guidance.
An organizational development
tool was designed to help teams
create an effective culture change.
Although it was adapted specifically to integrate with early patient
mobility efforts in the ICU, this tool
can be applied to other settings.
(See Learning progression for patient mobility.)
Three elements are crucial to
successfully implementing and sustaining an improvement initiative:
Team members must understand
and be able articulate whats
being proposed. To help them
understand, they must receive
evidence-based literature and
other relevant information.
Team members must grasp why
the initiative is important to the
patient, themselves, and the organization. Clinicians typically
respond favorably to change
when they can connect it to
real impacts.
The leader of the initiative must
define the role of each team

member and discipline. Understanding team roles creates a
solid platform on which the culture change builds.
Four stages of learning

To learn a skill or concept, a person progresses through four
stages, according to a learning
model attributed to Abraham
Maslow. This model can be applied to clinicians learning about
(SPHM).
Stage 1: Subconscious,
unskilled
In this stage, team members are
unaware of how little they know
and dont realize a change is necessary. Also, they may have fears
and misconceptions about the
change. For example, some critical care clinicians believe repositioning or mobilizing critically ill
patients threatens the security of
vital tubes and lines. But with the
proper knowledge, training, and
resources, staff can mobilize and
reposition ICU patients safely without jeopardizing tubes and lines.
In one study, 1,449 activity events
(such as sitting up in bed, sitting
in a chair, and ambulating) were
performed with mechanically ventilated patients; fewer than 1% experienced adverse events. As part
of the culture change, misconceptions about SPHM need to be addressed through education and
coaching. Once the purpose of
SPHM is defined clearly and misconceptions have been addressed,
team members are ready to move
on to stage 2.
Stage 2: Conscious,
unskilled
In the conscious, unskilled stage,
Decision tree for mobilizing hemodynamically

unstable patients
This diagram helps clinicians determine whether and when an intensive care unit patient is
ready to begin mobility activities.
Screen for mobility readiness

within 8 hours of admission to the
ICU and daily and initiate in-bed
mobility strategies as soon as
possible.
Is the patient hemodynamically

unstable with manual turning?
O2 Sat 90%
New-onset cardiac arrhythmias
or ischemia
HR < 60 or >120
MAP < 55 or >140
SBP < 90 or >180
New or increasing vasopressor
infusion
Key
HR: heart rate
ICU: intensive care unit
MAP: mean arterial pressure
SBP: systolic blood pressure
O2 sat: oxygen saturation
No
Begin in-bed mobility techniques

and progress to out-of-bed
mobility as the patient tolerates.
No
Begin in-bed mobility techniques

and progress to out-of-bed
mobility as the patient tolerates.
No
Allow the patient a minimum of

10 minutes of rest between
activities and then try again to
determine tolerance.
No
Try the position turn or head-ofbed maneuver slowly to allow

adaptation of cardiovascular
response to the inner-ear
postiion change.
Yes
Is the patient still
hemodynamically unstable after
allowing a 5- to 10-minute
adaptation after position change
before determining tolerance?
Yes
Have activities been spaced
sufficiently to allow rest?
Yes
Has the manual position turn or
head-of-bed elevation been
performed slowly?
Yes
Initiate continuous lateral
rotation therapy via a protocol to
train the patient to tolerate
turning.
2012 Kathleen Vollman-Advancing Nursing LLC.
team members understand why

SPHM is important but dont
know how to accomplish it. Although open to new learning,
September 2014
they may have fears about specific processes or actions involved

in patient mobilization. For instance, they may fear certain
types of mobilization activities

can cause hemodynamic instability. Education and practical application experiences can help them
overcome this fear. Another way
educators can break through such
barriers is to use a decision tree
that incorporates the latest scientific knowledge to help clinicians
minimize the hemodynamic impact or retrain patients to tolerate
movement. (See Decision tree for
mobilizing hemodynamically unstable patients.)
A critical resource used with
the VHA team was a nurse-driven,
evidence-based multidisciplinary
progressive mobility continuum
tool that addresses mobility phases and corresponding interventions. The team received education
on the tool and how to apply it in
In-bed mobility encompasses

repositioning
activities lateral-rotation
therapy, tilt-table exercises, and
bed-chair sitting.
practice. The tool provided a visual foundation to guide safe mobility practices, create consistency,
promote team communication, and
enhance processes.
Numerous studies show that education, skill building, and protocols may not be enough to create
sustainable change. Using strategies to evaluate available nursing
resources and systems that can
produce change makes it easier
for clinicians to provide the right
care for the right patient at the
right time while balancing these
needs against caregivers needs
for safety.
In bed and out-of-bed

activities
Strategies to promote patient and

caregiver safety during mobilization can be divided into two basic
categoriesthose used when the
patient is in bed and those used
when the patient is out of bed. Inbed mobility encompasses repositioning activities, lateral-rotation
therapy, tilt-table exercises, and
bed-chair sitting. Modern criticalcare beds should be capable of rotating the patient continuously, creating a tilt table through the use of
a reverse Trendelenburg position
and an adjustable footboard, progressing the body through the
head elevationfoot down position
to a chair, and ultimately assisting
the patient with standing. These
features reduce the risk of patient
and caregiver injury and make it
easier to perform mobility actions.
For in-bed repositioning from
side to side and moving up, using
a breathable glide sheet and specially designed foam wedges
helps reduce shear and friction for
the patient and help prevents injuries to caregivers because they
require a pulling rather than lifting
motion. In one study, implementation of this turn-and-position system
reduced hospital-acquired pressure ulcers by 28% and reduced
staff injuries by 58%. Lifts can be
used for some in-bed mobility activities and are effective during
ambulation and the transition from
in-bed to out-of-bed activities.
Stage 3: Conscious, skilled

Stage 3 learning focuses on implementing the change, with attention
to fine-tuning the process. Coaching, mentoring, and maintaining
engagement are critical. In previous stages, much effort was expended in educating and training
10 Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility
September 2014
staff. During the transition from

stage 3 to stage 4, the skills and
knowledge required for the SPHM
initiative must become hardwired or ingrained into caregivers subconscious. This requires
deliberate, focused energy on continued engagement. However,
staff energy, resource availability,
and competing priorities may pose
barriers to sustaining the change.
Throughout stage 3, positive
feedback, motivation, and sharing
of successes and challenges are
important for driving continual improvement and culture change.
These goals can be accomplished
in various ways. Here are some
examples:
Networking with other organizations in various stages of the
practice change can be extremely useful. It allows collaborative identification and sharing
of challenges, struggles, effective strategies, and success stories. This process creates synergistic energy among the team
members, helping to motivate
them and accelerate the
change.
Within the VHA mobility collaborative network, teams shared
reward strategies. One team
gave out M&Ms when caught
in the act of Moving and Mobilizing patients. Such moments
present crucial coaching opportunities. For example, after a
mobility event, staff can huddle
briefly to discuss the event and
what, if any, improvements
could be made to make the
process more effective.
Stage 4: Subconscious,
skilled
During this stage, the practice and
culture changes are well on their
(continued on page 25)
Standards to protect
nurses from handling and
mobility injuries
Learn about ANA standards that help
safeguard both nurses and patients.
By Amy Garcia, MSN, RN, CAE
he intense focus on safe patient handling and mobility

(SPHM) in acute and longterm care has yielded a valuable
benefit for nurses and other healthcare workersa decrease in staff
lifting injuries for the first time in
30 years. Nonetheless, nurses still
suffer more musculoskeletal disorders than employees in the manufacturing, construction, and shipbuilding industries.
Many employers and nurses believe lifting injuries can be prevented by using proper body mechanics and that lifting equipment
is warranted only for obese
adults. But the evidence contradicts this notion. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health calculates maximum loads
for manual lifting, pushing,
pulling, and carrying using a
range of variables. Typically, a
maximum load for a box with handles is 51 lb (23 kg)lower when
the lifter has to reach, lift near the
floor, or assume a twisted or awkward position. Of course, patients
dont come in simple shapes or
have handles. They may sit or lie
in awkward positions, move unexpectedly, or have wounds or devices that interfere with lifting. Although proper body mechanics
and good lifting technique are important, they dont compensate for
most patients weight.

A patchwork of regulations without teeth contributes to a hazardous
environment for caregivers and
patients. Congress passed the ergonomic standard of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration in 2000 but rescinded it in
2001 before the regulations could
take effect. Only 10 states have
laws requiring comprehensive
SPHM programs, typically targeting
acute and long-term care settings.
ANA standards
The American Nurses Association
(ANA) recognized the need for a
standard of care that applies to all
healthcare disciplines and encompasses the entire continuum of care.
In 2012, ANA convened an interprofessional group of subject matter
September 2014
experts to develop standards. Participants included representatives of

patients; nursing; surgery; therapy;
biomedical engineering; risk management; architecture; law; acute,
long-term, home health, and hospice care; the military; Department
of Defense; certain government
agencies; vendors; and professional associations.
In 2013, ANA published Safe
Patient Handling and Mobility: Interprofessional National Standards
Across the Care Continuum. Previous documents referred to safe patient handling and movement. The
workgroup changed the terminology from movement to mobility to
distinguish patient-initiated mobility
from movement accomplished by
others. Also, nurses use the word
mobility differently than physical or
Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility 11
occupational therapists. The terminology change is designed to

align our practices with patients
needs and highlight new research
on the importance of early and
progressive mobility in the intensive care unit. The workgroup also
chose the term technology to describe all lifts, slings, slide sheets,
computer programs, and other
items used to promote patient mobility. It decided that the term
healthcare recipient is more inclusive than patient for general use.
A closer look at the

standards
The eight ANA standards are
complemented by substandards,
examples, resources, and metrics
for evaluation.
Standard 1: Establish a culture

of safety. This standard calls for
the employer to establish a commitment to a culture of safety. This

means prioritizing safety over
competing goals in a blame-free
environment where individuals can
report errors or incidents without
fear. The employer is compelled to
evaluate systemic issues that contribute to incidents or accidents.
The standard also calls for safe
staffing levels and improved communication and collaboration.
Every organization should have a
procedure for nurses to report
safety concerns or refuse an assignment due to concern about patients or their own safety.
Standard 2: Implement and sus-
tain an SPHM program. This standard outlines SPHM program components, including an assessment,
written program, funding, and
matching the program to the specific setting. Evaluating the physical requirements of a task or role
is an important step toward minimizing risk to patients and nurses.
Standard 3: Incorporate er-
gonomic design principles to provide a safe care environment.

This standard is based on the concept of prevention through design,
which considers the physical layout, work-process flow, and use of
technology to reduce exposure to
injury or illness. Healthcare facilities should consider diverse perspectives, including those of nurses and therapists, when planning
for construction or remodeling.
Standard 4: Select, install, and
maintain SPHM technology. This

standard provides guidance in selecting, installing, and maintaining
SPHM technology. It emphasizes
the importance of investing in appropriate amounts and types of
SPHM technology to meet the
needs of patients in the organizations specific environment.
Standard 5: Establish a system
for education, training, and maintaining competence. This standard outlines employee (and volunteer) training and education
needed to participate in the SPHM
program. Education should be
multidisciplinary and include documented demonstration of competency before the employee uses
SPHM technology.
Standard 6: Integrate patient-cen-
tered SPHM assessment, plan of

care, and use of SPHM technology. This standard focuses on the patients needs by establishing assessment guidelines and developing an
individual plan of care. It also addresses the need to establish an organizational policy on the rights of
patients or family members who in-
September 2014
sist on manual handling. It outlines

the importance of using SPHM technology in a therapeutic manner,
with the goal of promoting independence. Nurses working in rehabilitation or assisted-living settings
may believe using lifts or other technology limits the patients independence, but selecting SPHM technology to be used in a progressive
manner can provide support and a
sense of safety as the patient gains
or regains independent movement.
For example, a patient may need
full-body lift technology immediately
after surgery, but then progress to a
sit-to-stand lift for bedside toileting
and then to technology that supports ambulation.
Standard 7: Include SPHM in
reasonable accommodation and

post-injury return to work. This
standard promotes an employees
early return to work after an injury
and use of differently abled workers through a comprehensive
SPHM program.
Standard 8: Establish a compre-
hensive evaluation system. The final standard calls for a comprehensive evaluation system for each
SPHM program component, with
remediation of deficiencies.
The appendix of Safe Patient
Handling and Mobility provides
an extensive list of resources for
meeting each standard. To order
the ANA book and the accompanying Implementation Guide to the
Safe Patient Handling and Mobility Interprofessional National Standards, visit www.nursesbooks.org/
8
SPHM-Package.
Visit www.AmericanNurseToday.com/
Archives.aspx for a list of selected references.
Amy Garcia is chief nursing officer for Cerner

Clairvia, specializing in workforce issues and was
the technical writer for the SPHM standards.
Implementing a
mobility assessment
tool for nurses
A nurse-driven assessment tool reveals the patients
mobility level and guides SPHM technology choices.
By Teresa Boynton, MS, OTR, CSPHP; Lesly Kelly, PhD, RN; and Amber Perez, LPN, BBA, CSPHP
patients mobility status affects treatment, handling

and transfer decisions, and
potential outcomes (including
falls). Hospital patients spend most
of their time in bedsometimes
coping with inadvertent negative
effects of immobility. Assessing a
patients mobility status is crucial,
especially for evaluating the risk
of falling. Yet no valid, easy-toadminister bedside mobility assessment tool exists for nurses
working in acute-care settings.
Various safe patient handling
and mobility (SPHM) technologies
allow safe transfer and mobilization of patients while permitting
maximum patient participation
and weight-bearing (if indicated).
A mobility assessment helps identify the SPHM technology needed to
ensure safe activities while taking
the guesswork and uncertainty out
of deciding which SPHM technology is right for which patient.
Because mobility is so important during hospitalization, members of a Banner Health multidisciplinary SPHM team determined
nurses should take a more active
role in assessing and managing
patient mobility. We concluded it
was crucial to develop and validate a tool that nurses can use
easily at the bedside to assess a
patients mobility level and the
need for SPHM technology. For

both patient and staff safety, a patients mobility level must be linked
with use of SPHM technology.
When used consistently, appropriate technology reduces the risk of
falls and other adverse patient outcomes associated with immobility.
(See The link between patient immobility and staff injuries.)
Communication barriers
Historically, mobility assessments
September 2014
and management have been under the purview of physical therapists (PTs) through consultations.
But the entire healthcare team
needs to address patient mobility.
Nurses conduct continual surveillance of patients and their progress, but typically they havent
performed consistent, validated
mobility assessments. Instead,
theyve relied on therapy services
to determine the patients mobility
level and management.
The link between patient immobility and staff

injuries
Patient immobility poses the risk of injury to healthcare workers. Nurse workloads continue to
rise as patient acuity levels increase and hospital stays lengthen. This situation increases patients dependence on nurses for assistance with their mobility needs.
Whats more, nursing staff frequently rely on the patient or a family member to report the
patients ability to stand, transfer, and ambulate. But this information can be unreliable, especially if the patient has cognitive impairment related to the diagnosis or medications or if he or
she has experienced unrecognized decreased mobility and deconditioning from the disease or
injury that necessitated hospitalization.
To decrease the risk of caregiver injury, nurses should assess patient mobility and use safe
patient handling and mobility (SPHM) technology.
Nurses arent trained in

skilled therapy
techniques and may be ill
prepared to mobilize patients
safely during routine daily
activities.
In many cases, though, a PTs
assessment doesnt translate to
meaningful actionable items for
nurses. Whats more, PTs dont always adequately communicate a
patients SPHM needs to other
healthcare team members. For example, confusion surrounds terminology typically used by PTs, such
as numeric mobility levels (1+, 2+,
indicating a one-person or twoperson assist, respectively) as well
as ranges (minimum, moderate, or
maximum assist by one or more
healthcare workers). Also, PTs are
consulted only for a limited number of patients and at different
points during the hospital stay.
Nurses, for their part, arent
trained in skilled therapy techniques and may be ill prepared to
mobilize patients safely during
routine daily activities.
In addition to communicating
potential risk to other healthcare
team members, mobility assessment can identify technology need-
ed to perform SPHM. Especially if

PTs arent available, nurses must
rely on their own judgment to
move and mobilize patients safely.
But they may be uncertain as to
which equipment to use for which
patients. While a total lift may be
used with many patients, such a
lift doesnt maximize the patients
mobility potential.
Current mobility
assessment options
Although tools to assess mobility
and guide SPHM technology selection are used in hospitals, their value for the bedside nurse may be
limited or inappropriate with many
patients in acute-care settings.
SPHM algorithms from the Department of Veterans Affairs have been
valuable as training and decisionmaking tools in determining which
SPHM technology to consider for
specific tasks. But these can be
hard to use at the bedside. Also,
they assume the patients mobility
status is known and dont provide
quick guidance in determining a
patients overall mobility level.
(See Limitations of common mobility assessment tools.)
Limitations of common mobility

assessment tools
Several of the mobility assessment tools discussed below already are in use, but
each has certain drawbacks.
The Timed Get Up and Go Test starts by having
the patient stand up from an armchair, walk 3
meters, turn, walk back to the chair, and sit down.
But it gives no guidance on what to do if the patient cant maintain seated balance, bear weight,
or stand and walk.
The Quick 5 Bedside Guide tool, developed by
a registered nurse and physical therapist (PT),
was the basis for a research project on what became known as the Quick 3. This tool takes the
patient through three functional tasks but doesnt
fully address patient limitations. Nor does it recognize weight-bearing limitations or address the
issues or abilities of an ambulatory patient. Also,
it provides only limited recommendations for
SPHM technology.
The Egress test, also developed by a PT, is used
in hospital settings. It starts with the patient performing three repetitions of sit-to-stand, at the
bedside, marching in place, and advance step and
return with each foot. But its tailored to PTs and
doesnt address how the patient performs bed mobility or comes to a standing position. Also, it gives only limited guidance for nurses on use of SPHM technology
and isnt appropriate for certain patients (such as those unable to weight bear on
one or both legs).
September 2014
Banner Mobility Assessment Tool for nurses

Nurses have found that the Banner Mobility Assessment Tool (BMAT) is an effective resource for performing a bedside assessment of patient
mobility.
Fail = Choose most appropriate

equipment/device(s)
Pass
Test
Task
Response
Assessment
Level 1
Assessment of:
Trunk strength
Seated balance
Sit and shake: From a semi-reclined

position, ask patient to sit upright and
rotate* to a seated position at side
of bed; may use bedrail.
Note patients ability to maintain
bedside position.
Ask patient to reach out and grab your
hand and shake, making sure patient
reaches across his/her midline.
Sit: Patient is able to follow

commands, has some trunk strength;
caregivers may be able to try weightbearing if patient is able to maintain
seated balance longer than 2 minutes
(without caregiver assistance).
Shake: Patient has significant upper
body strength, awareness of body in
space, and grasp strength.
MOBILITY LEVEL 1
Use total lift with sling and/or
repositioning sheet and/or straps.
Use lateral transfer devices, such
as roll board, friction-reducing
device (slide sheets/tube), or
air-assisted device.
Note: If patient has strict bed rest
or bilateral non-weight-bearing
restrictions, do not proceed with the
assessment; patient is MOBILITY
LEVEL 1.
Passed Assessment
Level 1 = Proceed
with Assessment
Level 2.
Assessment
Level 2
Assessment of:
Lower extremity
strength
Stability
Stretch and point: With patient in

seated position at side of bed, have
patient place both feet on floor (or stool)
with knees no higher than hips.
Ask patient to stretch one leg and
straighten knee, then bend ankle/flex
and point toes. If appropriate, repeat with
other leg.
Patient exhibits lower extremity

stability, strength and control.
May test only one leg and
proceed accordingly (e.g.,
stroke patient, patient with
ankle in cast).
MOBILITY LEVEL 2
Use total lift for patient unable to
weight- bear on at least one leg.
Use sit-to-stand lift for patient who
can weight-bear on at least one leg.
Passed Assessment
Level 2 = Proceed
with Assessment
Level 3.
Assessment
Level 3
Assessment of:
Lower extremity
strength for
standing
Stand: Ask patient to elevate off bed or

chair (seated to standing) using assistive
device (cane, bedrail).
Patient should be able to raise buttocks
off bed and hold for a count of five. May
repeat once.
Note: Consider your patients cognitive
ability, including orientation and CAM
assessment if applicable.
Patient exhibits upper and lower

extremity stability and strength.
May test with weight-bearing
on only one leg and proceed
accordingly (e.g., stroke patient,
patient with ankle in cast).
If any assistive device (cane,
walker, crutches) is needed,
patient is Mobility Level 3.
MOBILITY LEVEL 3
Use non-powered raising/stand aid;
default to powered sit-to-stand lift
if no stand aid is available.
Use total lift with ambulation
accessories.
Use assistive device (cane, walker,
crutches).
Note: Patient passes Assessment Level
3 but requires assistive device to
ambulate or cognitive assessment
indicates poor safety awareness;
patient is MOBILITY LEVEL 3.
Passed Assessment
Level 3 AND no
assistive device
needed = Proceed
with Assessment
Level 4.
Consult with
physical therapist
when needed
and appropriate.
Assessment
Level 3
Assessment of:
Standing balance
Gait
Walk: Ask patient to march in place at

bedside. Then ask patient to advance
step and return each foot.
Patient should display stability while
performing tasks.
Assess for stability and safety awareness.
Patient exhibits steady gait and good

balance while marching and when
stepping forward and backward.
Patient can maneuver necessary turns
for in-room mobility.
Patient exhibits safety awareness.
MOBILITY LEVEL 3
If patient shows signs of unsteady gait
or fails Assessment Level 4, refer
back to MOBILITY LEVEL 3;
patient is MOBILITY LEVEL 3.
MOBILITY LEVEL 4
MODIFIED
INDEPENDENCE
Passed = No
assistance needed
to ambulate; use your
best clinical judgment to
determine need for
supervision during
ambulation.
Always default to the safest lifting/transfer method (e.g., total lift) if there is any doubt about the patients ability to perform the task.
Banner Mobility
Assessment Tool
At Banner Health, we developed
the Banner Mobility Assessment
Tool (BMAT) to be used as a
nurse-driven bedside assessment

of patient mobility. It walks the
patient through a four-step functional task list and identifies the
mobility level the patient can
September 2014
achieve (such as mobility level

1). Then it guides the nurse to the
recommended SPHM technology
needed to safely lift, transfer,
and mobilize the patient. (See
Banner Mobility Assessment Tool

for nurses.)
Implementing BMAT
The BMAT was created in our hospitals electronic medical record
(EMR) in a way that guides the
nurse through the assessment
steps. Patients are determined to
have a mobility level of 1, 2, 3,
or 4 based on whether they pass
or fail each assessment level. Educational tools and tip sheets are
used to train nurses and support
staff on what technology to consider for patients at each level.
To stay current on the patients

mobility status nurses are
expected to complete the BMAT on
admission, once per shift, and with
the patient status changes.
Communication tools also are
used. For instance, a sign outside
the patients room indicates his or
her mobility level, instantly telling
anyone passing by or entering if
the patient can ambulate independently or if SPHM technology
must be used. To stay current on
the patients mobility status (for instance, at handoffs, after procedures, with medication changes,
or after a potentially tiring therapy
session), nurses are expected to
complete the BMAT on admission,
once per shift, and with the patient status changes. The BMAT
also is linked to Banners fall assessment risk in the EMR.
Throughout BMAT implementation, we recognized that identifying a patients mobility level and
fall risk score are pointless unless
appropriate interventions are implemented and the outcomes evaluated. Nurses need to be empowered and able to recognize the
connection between these assessments and choice of interventions,
including SPHM technology.
Heres an example of BMAT in
action at Banner: A 35-year-old
male was admitted to a surgical
floor late in the evening. He was
6'2" tall and weighed 350 lb
(158 kg). He didnt want to use a
bedpan, but his nurse wasnt comfortable getting him up to use the
bathroom because he hadnt been
evaluated by physical therapy,
and a PT wasnt available in the
evening. A nurse passing by
whod used the BMAT (which hadnt been formally rolled out Banner-wide at that time) came in and
assessed the patient; the assessment found him at mobility level 3.
He was transferred to the toilet using a nonpowered stand aid. Both
patient and nurse were relieved
and happy.
A step in the right

direction
As a quick bedside assessment
tool, the BMAT is a step in the right
direction. Its part of a broad program of increased staff awareness,
education, and training around patient assessments, preventing staff
injuries and patient falls, and
achieving better patient outcomes.
Initial evidence from a validation
study completed at one Banner hospital supports the BMAT as a valid
instrument for assessing a patients
mobility status at the bedside.
As we work toward customizing
actions and interventions to meet
individual patient needs, we continue to evaluate which additional assessment components or fall interventions or precautions are needed
September 2014
or require greater focus. Although

we know nurses should be more involved in assessing mobility than
they have been historically, we recognize the value of involving and
communicating effectively with all
members of a good interdisciplinary team to help reduce patient
falls and staff injuries caused by
8
patient handling.
Selected references
Dionne M. Practice Management: Stand and deliver. Physical Therapy Products. March 2005.
www.ptproductsonline.com/2005/03/standand-deliver/. Accessed June 30, 2014.
Hook ML, Devine EC, Lang NM. Using a computerized fall risk assessment process to tailor
interventions in acute care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, eds. Advances in
Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative
Approaches; vol 1. Assessment. AHRQ Publication No. 08-0034. Rockville, MD: Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43610. Accessed July 10, 2014.
Mathias S, Nayak US, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: the get-up and go test. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67(6):387-9.
Oliver D, Healey F. Falls risk prediction tools for
hospital inpatients: do they work? Nurs Times.
2009;105(7):18-21.
Oliver D, Healey F, Haines TP. Preventing falls
and fall-related injuries in hospitals. Clin Geriatr
Med. 2010;26(4):645-92.
Nelson AL. Safe patient handling and movement: A guide for nurses and other health care
providers. New York, NY: Springer Publishing
Company, Inc.; 2006. www.springerpub.com/
samples/9780826163639_chapter.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2014.
Nelson A, Harwood KJ, Tracey CA, Dunn KL.
Myths and facts about safe patient handling in
rehabilitation. Rehabil Nurs. 2008;33(1):10-7.
Wright B, Murphy J. Quick-5 Bedside Guide.
Franklin, MA: Liko, Inc.; 2005.
Teresa Boynton is an injury prevention and

workers compensation consultant, ergonomics
specialist, and certified safe patient handling
professional for Risk Management at Banner
Health, Western Region, based in Greeley, Colorado. Lesly Kelly is the RN clinical research
program director for Banner Good Samaritan
Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Amber
Perez is a safe patient handling clinical consultant for Handicare North America based in
Phoenix, Arizona.
The sliding patient:

How to respond to
and prevent migration
in bed
Migration can cause negative patient outcomes and
caregiver injuries resulting from repositioning.
By Neal Wiggermann, PhD
n hospital settings, where the

head of the bed (HOB) commonly is elevated, gravity causes patients to slide, or migrate,
toward the foot of the bed. Nurses are well aware of this, as
theyre regularly required to pull
patients back toward the HOB if
they cant reposition themselves.
A 1995 study at one hospital

found nurses pulled patients up in
bed an average of 9.9 times per
shift. More recent evidence suggests this activity may be even
more common in some hospitals
and units.
Studies show that pulling patients whove migrated in bed
September 2014
carries an extremely high risk of

caregiver injury. Less research
has been done on the effects of
migration on patients. This article
describes how migration can affect patient outcomes, outlines relevant scientific evidence, and discusses strategies for managing
patient migration.
Considerations when purchasing hospital

beds
Before purchasing hospital beds, clinicians and hospital purchasing staff should evaluate relevant manufacturer claims and test data to determine how well the product performs to reduce
patient migration. Keep the following points in mind.
Migration test results may vary based on methodology, so be suspicious of marketing

materials that dont describe test methods.
Consider the relevance of test conditions to their clinical application.

Be aware that a proper experimental design can improve test result accuracy. For example, a laboratory motion-capture system produces less error than a tape measure, and a
large subject sample (10 or more) with subjects of varied heights and weights is more accurate than a small or homogenous sample.
Make sure migration is reported with respect to the bed surface. Because the top sections
of some hospital bed frames can move back relative to the floor, measuring migration
relative to the floor rather than the bed surface can lead to the mistaken conclusion that
a patient has migrated several inches less than he or she actually has.
Negative effects of
migration
A 2013 study found that patients
in traditional hospital-bed designs
migrated about 13 cm (5") when
the HOB was raised to 45 degrees. Both bed movement and
gravity cause patients to slide
down in bed over time if the HOB
is kept elevated. Such migration
presumably causes friction and
Once patients have migrated

farther down the mattress,
elevating the HOB may no

longer reduce aspiration risk.
shear forces between the mattress

and skin as the patient slides
against the bed surface. Although
friction and shear have been
linked to pressure-ulcer formation,
no research has evaluated whether
friction and shear caused by migration directly contribute to pressure-ulcer risk.
As patients migrate toward the
foot of the bed, the torso eleva-
tion decreases. A pilot investigation of 10 healthy subjects lying

with the HOB at 30 degrees
showed their torso angle was
about 30 degrees when properly
aligned with the hip indicator,
compared to about 12 degrees
when they migrated 23 cm (9")
past the hip indicator.
Positioning the HOB at or
above 30 degrees is intended
to reduce the risk of ventilatorassociated pneumonia (VAP) because torso elevation decreases
the risk of aspirating gastric contents into the lungs. Once patients
have migrated farther down the
mattress, elevating the HOB may
no longer reduce aspiration risk
because their torsos are flatter. At
that point, if theyre not repositioned, they may be at increased
risk for VAP.
When patients migrate down in
bed with the HOB up, they slide
out away from the pivot of the
HOB section and the lumbar spine
goes unsupported, causing kyphosis. Kyphosis reduces lung capacity, so respiratory function may
diminish in patients whove migrated. Although the relationship between kyphotic postures caused
by migration and discomfort has-
September 2014
n't been studied for hospital beds,

its reasonable to expect migration
would result in discomfort, especially in patients with low back
pain or disc herniation.
Responding to patient
migration
To help prevent negative outcomes
associated with patient migration,
be diligent in repositioning patients whove migrated downward.
But be aware that repositioning is
most likely to affect outcomes related to torso angle (such as VAP, reduced lung capacity, and discomfort)not friction and shear linked
to pressure-ulcer development.
Among patients unable to boost or
reposition themselves in bed,
those on mechanical ventilators
and those with back pain may be
most in need of repositioning by
the nurse.
Repositioning patients manually is associated with a high risk
of musculoskeletal injury, so always use repositioning aids for
patients unable to reposition
themselves. Using lift equipment,
such as a ceiling-mounted or mobile lift, is the best way to reduce
healthcare worker strain, according to the American Nurses Associations Safe Patient Handling
and Mobility: Interprofessional
National Standards, which calls
for eliminating manual lifting in
all healthcare settings.
If lift equipment isnt available,
use a friction-reducing sheet and
place the bed in the Trendelenburg
position (if the patient can tolerate
it). If the patient is on an air surface, use the max inflate function. Patients who can provide partial assistance should participate in
mobilization by placing their feet
flat on the mattress and bridging
when being repositioned. The pa-
tient also may pull on traction

equipment, a trapeze bar, or the
bed side rails, if available.
However, be aware that any
method that involves manual lifting
can cause injury to the nurse. One
researcher found that based on
the postures adopted when handling patients, caregivers who lift
with forces above 16 kg (35 lb)
are at increased risk of injury. The
most effective way to prevent selfinjury when repositioning patients
is to use a ceiling-mounted or mobile lift. An air-assisted lateral
transfer device also can be used
to reposition the patient up in bed.
Preventing migration
Despite the impact of migration on
patients and caregivers, little research exists on how to prevent it.
The beds contribution to migration
has been investigated in laboratory studies, but patient movement
has yet to be studied.
To limit migration when articulating the bed, use auto-contour (a
knee gatch that rises automatically
and simultaneously as the HOB
rises) to reduce migration by up to
2.5 cm (1"). If the bed doesnt
have auto-contour, raise the knee
gatch before raising the HOB. Besides limiting migration from bed
articulation, keeping the patients
knees raised also may help limit
migration over time. Of course,
these strategies can be used only
if the patient can tolerate knee
bending.
Design of the bed-frame articulation seems to have an even bigger effect than auto-contour on the
amount of patient migration. For
example, across three different
bed-frame designs, mean cumulative movement (total amount of
sliding when raising and lowering
the HOB) ranged from 13 to 28
Be aware that any method

that involves manual
lifting can cause injury

to the nurse.
cm (5" to 11"). Most likely, migration caused by bed movement will
continue to decrease as manufacturers develop beds more compatible with the changing geometry of
the patient as the HOB rises. (See
Considerations when purchasing
hospital beds.)
More research is needed to
confirm indications that patient
migration toward the foot of the
bed increases pressure-ulcer and
VAP risk, causes patient discomfort, and reduces lung capacity.
Many tools are available to help
nurses safely reposition patients
whove migrated. Using autocontour when raising the HOB or
the knee gatch may help prevent
migration or slow its rate. Design
of the beds articulation also affects the distance that a patient
8
migrates.
Selected references
Bakker EW, Verhagen AP, van Trijffel E, Lucas
C, Koes BW. Spinal mechanical load as a risk
factor for low back pain: a systematic review of
prospective cohort studies. Spine (Phila PA
1976). 2009;34(8): E281-93.
Bartnik LM, Rice MS. Comparison of caregiver
forces required for sliding a patient up in bed
using an array of slide sheets. Workplace
Health Saf. 2013;61(9):393-400.
Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al.
Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated
patients: a randomised trial. Lancet.1999;354
(9193):1851-8.
Eriksen W, Bruusgaard D, Knardahl S. Work
September 2014
factors as predictors of intense or disabling low

back pain; a prospective study of nurses aides.
Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(5):398-404.
Kotowski SE, Davis KG, Wiggermann N,
Williamson R. Quantification of patient migration in bed: catalyst to improve hospital bed design to reduce shear and friction forces and nurses injuries. Hum Factors. 2013;55(1):36-47.
Lin F, Parthasarathy S, Taylor SJ, et al. Effect of
different sitting postures on lung capacity, expiratory flow, and lumbar lordosis. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil. 2006;87(4):504-9.
Marras WS, Davis KG, Kirking BC, Bertsche PK.
A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder
risk and spinal loading during the transferring
and repositioning of patients using different
techniques. Ergonomics. 1999;42(7):904-26.
Mehta RK, Horton LM, Agnew MJ, Nussbaum
MA. Ergonomic evaluation of hospital bed design features during patient handling tasks. Int J
Ind Ergon. 2011;41(6):647-52.
Metheny NA, Davis-Jackson J, Stewart BJ. Effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol.
Nurs Res. 2010;59(1):18-25.
Michel DP, Helander MG. Effects of two types of
chairs on stature change and comfort for individuals with healthy and herniated discs. Ergonomics. 1994;37(7):1231-44.
Poole-Wilson T, Davis K, Daraiseh N, Kotowski
S. Documenting the amount of manual handling
performed by nurses in a hospital setting. Proceedings of 2014 Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care: Leading
the Way. Chicago, IL: The Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society; 2014.
Skotte J, Fallentin N. Low back injury risk during
repositioning of patients in bed: the influence of
handling technique, patient weight and disability. Ergonomics. 2008;51(7):1042-52.
Vasiliadou A, Karvountzis GG, Soumilas A,
Roumeliotis D, Theodosopoulou E. Occupational
low-back pain in nursing staff in a Greek hospital. J Adv Nurs. 1995;21(1):125-30.
Waters TR. When is it safe to manually lift a patient? Am J Nurs. 2007;107(8):53-9.
Wiggermann NE, Vangilder C, Davis K. Patient
migration toward the foot of the bed affects torso angle. 2014 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. http://ajcc.aacnjournals.org/
content/23/3/e19.full?sid=039ddc07-4db14bc4-aaca-5855cc684831#sec-175. Accessed
July 15, 2014.
Williams MM, Hawley JA, McKenzie RA, van
Wijmen PM. A comparison of the effects of two
sitting postures on back and referred pain.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(10):1185-91.
Neal Wiggermann is a senior biomedical engineer and ergonomics specialist for Hill-Rom in
Batesville, Indiana.
Prepare to care for

patients of size
How to make mobilization and lifting safer for
bariatric patients and staff
By Dee Kumpar, MBA, BSN, RN, CSPHP
roviding care for bariatric

patients is a concern for
healthcare facilities and staff
everywhere. Delayed patient mobilization due to fear of injury and
lack of proper policy, knowledge,
or equipment for handling these
patients can lead to poor outcomesand may pose legal and
ethical concerns. Specialized
equipment, beds, patient lifts, and
surgical instruments must be made
available to help nurses and other

healthcare professionals care for
and support best practices for
bariatric patients. (See Bariatrics
by the numbers.)
Mobility matters
When patients cant mobilize independently, they rely on nursing and
physical therapy staff to prevent immobility complicationspressure
ulcers, contractures, deep vein
Bariatrics by the numbers

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 69% of adults were overweight, including 35% who were obese. Among adolescents ages 12 to 19, 18.4% were obese;
among children ages 6 to 11, 18% were obese; and among children ages 2 to 5, about 12%
were obese. Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 to 39; morbid obesity, a BMI of
40 or higher. Overweight is defined as a BMI between 25 and 29.9.
Overweight and obese persons are at increased risk for many diseases and disorders, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease, gallbladder disease,
cancer, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, and depression.
September 2014
thrombosis, muscle wasting, and

pneumonia. Increased patient size
is a significant barrier to early mobility, as are lack of proper equipment to lift and move the patient.
Yet providing early mobilization
for dependent patients is challenging, and when theyre large, it
may seem overwhelming. The
bariatric patient may be at even
greater risk for immobility and deconditioning during hospitalization
because nurses may fear theyll injure themselves while providing
patient care. Manual patient mobilization increases the risk of musculoskeletal injury to caregivers. One
study found that although bariatric
patients accounted for less than
10% of the patient census in acutecare facilities, patient-handling injuries involving them accounted for
29.8% of staff-reported injuries.
Safe patient handling and lifting
requires skill and specialized products that support early mobility, lifting, and ambulation.
Bariatric patients may fear
falling and may be embarrassed
that it takes four or five people to
lift, move, or support them during
toileting or out-of-bed activities.
They may have moderate to severe mobility limitations due to
body type, decreased range of
motion at the hip and knee, generalized adiposity, and location and
size of the pannus (a dense layer
of fatty tissue over the lower abdominal area).
Promoting a culture of
safety
Other assessment considerations include:

weight-bearing capability (full,
partial, or none)
whether the patient has bilateral upper-extremity strength
patients level of cooperation
and comprehension
medications, such as vasopressors and paralytics
conditions that may affect
choice of transfer technique,
such as stomas, fractures, severe
edema, or joint replacements.
As a nurse, you can lead the way

to creating and maintaining a culture of safety by supporting and
modeling safe patient-handling
practices on your unit. A focused
approach to managing bariatric
patients mobility needs requires
thoughtful planning and knowledge of the technology designed
to support care for these patients
throughout their entire stay. Lifting
and mobility practices can be
standardized successfully if nurses
have a voice in developing a safe
patient-handling and mobility
(SPHM) program and in selecting
SPHM technology.
For more information on assessment, read Implementing a mobility assessment tool for nurses in
this supplement.
Assessing the level of

assistance needed
Patient-handling
algorithms
Changing practice begins with

evaluating the types of lifting and
moving tasks required. Bariatric patients may need assistance with
common activities, such as toileting,
bathing, skin care, eating, sitting
upright, and ambulating. To eliminate variations in care practices,
caregivers should be clear on how
to assess a patients mobility status.
Barriers to moving independently
not the patients weightshould be
the main criteria for determining the
need for lift equipment.
Standard categories of dependency levels include:
dependentthe patient relies
on the nurse or caregiver for all
lifting and moving activities
minimally to moderately dependentthe patient relies on
the nurse or caregiver for more
than 50% of lifting and moving
activities
independentthe patient can
perform lifting and moving activities without assistance from
the nurse or other caregiver.
In 2003, the Veterans Administration created algorithms to provide

guidance on how to safely perform high-risk activities related to
patient handling and movement.
Each algorithm specifies the suggested number of caregivers as
well as selection and use of appropriate lift equipment. To download these algorithms, visit
www.tampavaref.org/safe-patienthandling.htm.
Organizational guidelines
Manual lifting of any patient isnt
safe. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (part
of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration), recommends 35 lb (15 kg) as the safe
patient-lifting limit for healthcare
workers. The American Nurses Association (ANA) supports a policy
of no manual lifting, as discussed
in its 2013 book, Safe Patient
Handling and Mobility: Interprofessional National Standards.
A 2010 white paper from The
September 2014
Facility Guidelines Institute, titled

Patient handling and mobility assessment (FGI-PHAMA), provides
recommendations for the right
amount of equipment in the right
location based on the specific
needs of patients on each type of
unit. (The ANA publication mentioned above cites this document
as supporting evidence on select-
Barriers to moving independently

not the patients weightshould
be the main criteria for determining
the need for lift equipment.
ing and using lift equipment.) For
example, we know many patients
in intensive care units (ICUs) are
dependent and must rely on nurses
to boost, turn, and reposition them
frequently throughout the day. FGIPHAMA recommends 100% ceiling lift coverage in ICUs to ensure
patient mobilization activities can
be done without delay or injury to
nurses. For medical-surgical units,
FGI-PHAMA recommends 50%
ceiling lift coverage, because generally half the patients on these
units depend on the nurse to lift,
manage, move, and support their
ambulation activities throughout
some portion of their stay.
Challenging environments
Advances currently are under way
to promote safe patient handling
in other challenging hospital areas, such as the operating room
(OR), emergency department, outpatient areas, and ancillary units.
Preplanning for patient flow and
transfer activity to and from these
units is essential. The care team
must communicate, coordinate,
and cooperate during patient
transport, lateral transfers, and
Case study: Bariatric surgery using the proper

SPHM technology
By Ronda Fritz, RN, BSN, MA
An estimated 179,000 bariatric surgeries were performed in the United States in 2013. Demand for such surgery continues to rise. However, using safe patient handling and mobility
(SPHM) technology in the operating room (OR) can be challenging because of the sterile
environment and potential lack of knowledge about safe equipment useespecially for
such tasks as lifting the pannus and limbs. This case study shows how one nurse was able to
promote a culture of safety in the OR and how the surgeon recognized the benefits to both
the surgical team and patient. As described below, a team of experts in the hospital determined how to incorporate the patient lift system to support the pannus during surgery to
protect staff from injury and enhance the surgeons visualization and safety.
A morbidly obese patient weighing 488 lb (221 kg) with a BMI of 70 was scheduled for a
panniculectomy (pannus removal) and hernia repair. The surgeon requested use of a patient lift during the procedure to lift and hold the pannus. As the patient was being prepped
for surgery, the surgeon learned that the requested Bhler Steinmann pin holders, which
would attach to the lift to support the pannus, werent available. He cancelled the surgery
and rescheduled it for a later date. He said he wouldnt perform the surgery without the patient lift because he didnt want staff to hold the pannus, which weighed more than 100 lb
(45 kg), for the 3 to 5 hours the surgery would take.
The panniculectomy was rescheduled. Before the operation, the nurse worked with SPHM
experts to assess how to best handle the patient and developed a plan to incorporate the
patient lift system to support the pannus during surgery, thus protecting staff from injury
and enhancing the surgeons visualization and safety.
The surgery was performed with use of a portable patient lift. The patient was positioned
on an OR table appropriate for his size and weight and prepped in sterile fashion. The pannus was suspended with two Steinmann pins attached to two Bhler Steinmann pin holders
and a Golvo 7007 lift. The patient was draped and prepped in standard sterile fashion. An
SPHM expert positioned and operated the lift during the procedure. The panniculectomy removed 40 lb (18 kg) of adipose tissue. When the surgery was completed, the patient was
transferred off the OR table with an air-assisted lateral transfer device.
Benefits of using the proper equipment
Using the proper patient-handling equipment during the panneculectomy yielded the following benefits:
No unpredictable movement of the pannus occurred while it was attached to the lift. It
was moved only when the surgeon moved the tissue or directed the SPHM expert to
reposition or lift it.
Use of the lift during the surgery enhanced patient safety.
The patients adipose tissue was hiding many blood vessels. Having the pannus stabilized
by the lift helped avoid unintentional vessel dissections. Estimated blood loss was 300 mL.
Use of OR staff was improved. Although six additional staff members were assigned to
assist with holding the pannus and transferring the patient off the OR table, they werent
needed and were released to other duties.
No staff members were injured during the procedure. Because the air-assisted lateral
transfer device was used, no patient or staff injuries occurred during transfer from the OR
table to the bed.
No patient injuries occurred.
Ronda Fritz is a safe patient-handling facility champion at VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System in
Omaha, Nebraska. She is on the board of directors of the Association of Safe Patient Handling Professionals.
repositioning. With technology

available to prevent injury to both
caregivers and patients, no department should put staff at risk
for injury during transfer activities.
(For a case study on bariatric

equipment use in the OR, see
Case study: Bariatric surgery using the proper SPHM technology.)
Bariatric patients present multi-
September 2014
ple concerns for healthcare workers. We encourage all nurses to

speak up about safety and to
support a SPHM workplace en8
vironment.
Selected references
American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric
Surgery. Estimate of bariatric surgery numbers.
2014. http://asmbs.org/2014/03/estimateof-bariatric-surgery-numbers. Accessed June 24,
2014.
American Society of Bariatric Surgeons. Medical options for treating obesity fact sheet. Updated May 2014. www.asbp.org/images/
PDFs/Resources/Obesity-Algorithm_FactSheet
.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2014.
The Facility Guidelines Institute. 2010 Health
Guidelines Revision Committee Specialty Subcommittee on Patient Movement. Patient handling and movement assessments: A white paper. April 2010. https://www.dli.mn.gov/wsc/
PDF/FGI_PHAMAwhitepaper_042710.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2014.
Gallagher S. Implementation Guide to the Safe
Patient Handling and Mobility Interprofessional
National Standards. Silver Spring, MD: American Nurses Association; 2013.
Gallagher S. The Challenges of Caring for the
Obese Patient. Edgemont, PA: Matrix Medical
Communications; 2005.
Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM.
Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the
United States, 2011-2012. JAMA. 2014;
311(8):806-14.
Randall SB, Pories WJ, Pearson A, Drake DJ.
Expanded Occupational Safety and Health Administration 300 log as metric for bariatric patient-handling staff injuries. Surg Obes Relat Dis.
2009;5(4);463-8.
Schallom L, Metheny NA, Stewart J, et al. Effect
of frequency of manual turning on pneumonia.
Am J Crit Care. 2005;14(6):476-8.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Safe patient handling and movement. Reviewed/Updated April 30, 2014. www.visn8.va.gov/visn8/
patientsafetycenter/safePtHandling/default.asp.
Accessed June 24, 2014.
Dee Kumpar is the director for Safe Patient

Handling Programs at Hill-Rom in Batesville,
Indiana and a member of the workgroup for
ANAs Safe Patient Handling and Mobility: Interprofessional National Standards. She is on
the board of directors of the Association of Safe
Patient Handling Professionals.
Developing a sling
management system
Learn about key decisions for this segment
of an SPHM program.
By Jan DuBose, RN, CSPHP
patient mobility assessment

determines your new patient
needs a dependent sling.
But when you finish your admission intake and reach the sling inventory storage site, you find no
slings are available. Or perhaps
you see a sling hanging on a hook
and wonder if its clean or dirty.
If youve had an experience
like this, youre probably eager
for your workplace to adopt a
(SPHM) program that addresses
slings, among other things. But
before adopting such a program,
a healthcare facility must perform
a unit assessment to evaluate:
medical conditions and mobility
needs of its patient population
maximum number of bariatric
patients on the unit at a given
time, and how often the unit
reaches this number
tasks performed on the unit
unit staffing
storage constraints.
Other parts of an SPHM program related to sling use include
infection control and selection of
the sling fabric.
Launderable vs.
disposable
The SPHM committee, which
oversees all aspects of the SPHM
program, must decide if the facility should use launderable and
reusable slings, disposable
slings, or both types. Input from
the laundry department is critical. Each type of sling has benefits and drawbacks. (See Comparing launderable and disposable slings.) If the committee
chooses launderable slings,
the next decision is whether to
launder them in-house or out-
source laundering to a laundry

company.
In-house laundering
Advantages of in-house laundering include:

negligible number of missing
or lost slings because all slings
Comparing launderable and disposable slings

Despite their laundering costs, launderable slings are more cost-effective than disposable
slings because theyre reusable. Also, more launderable sling types are available, giving
healthcare facilities more solutions for patient transfer and lifting needs. However, these
slings raise concerns about infection control and sling sharing.
Disposable slings, on the other hand, are easier to store. With no laundering process, the
safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) program is simpler, no slings are lost to laundering, and infection control is easier. On the flip side, the ever-increasing cost of replacing
slings can be a financial drain even on a successful, sustainable SPHM program. Also, disposable sling styles are limited, which can reduce the potential success of the program by failing
to address all the manual tasks required.
September 2014
Case study: On-site laundry with centralized

distribution
By Deanna Watkins, MSN, RN, CSPHP
One hospital chose to build an 800-square-foot on-site laundry facility to reduce overall
product processing costs, reduce the required product inventory, and decrease the risk of
product loss. The laundry facility also represented an investment in the hospital's infrastructure. Achieving return on investment was estimated to take less than 18 months.
The hospital purchased four times the estimated inventory of slings and accessories,
compared to six times the inventory that offsite laundering would require. Keeping products on-site keeps losses low and allows barcoding of all items for product management
and tracking. Also, the on-site facility custom-launders linens with the potential for future
savings.
The hospital has a centralized process managed by the linen service of the environmental services department. This allows better inventory tracking and accountability. Each
unit and department has an established inventory or periodic automatic replenishment
(PAR) level of lift products. PAR levels were determined by reviewing patient demographics for each unit; the most difficult tasks reported by the staff; admission, discharge, and
transfer data; average patient weight; and location from where most patients are admitted (such as direct admit vs. postoperative).
All products are barcoded and labeled with organization identification, not unit or department identification. That way, slings can be transferred with the patient as he or she
flows throughout the care continuum. This is accomplished by the linen service using a
laundry cart exchange process. Carts are exchanged daily depending on product use. Specialty slings and accessories (such as amputee slings) also can be acquired through the
centralized system by calling the main phone number for linen distribution.
Deanna Watkins is a nursing administrative specialist at Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona.
stay in the facility

shorter turnaround time due to
better control of the process
reduced sling purchase cost
due to reduced inventory
better oversight for maintaining
sling standards.
Disadvantages include:
the need for a dedicated staff
member to oversee and manage the process
the need for space to house a
washer, dryer, drying cabinet,
folding surface, and storage
carts
a properly vented environment
to avoid dampness and mold
possible injuries to laundry
staff due to the added workload. (See Case study: On-site
laundry with centralized distribution.)
Outsourced laundering
Advantages of outsourced laun-
dering include a reduced impact

on laundry staff and transfer of responsibility for a smooth, successful process off-campus. Disadvantages are possible loss of slings,
sling damage from industrial laundering methods, long turnaround
time, and costs (determined by
the pound or item).
Fabric maintenance
Whichever laundering process is
chosen, fabric maintenance
guidelines must be followed.
Meeting infection-prevention standards is paramount. For example, a protocol for disposing of
or treating soiled or infected
slings must be established, along
with protocols for single patient
use of slings. Fabric integrity
must be maintained to extend
sling life; preserving sling quality
for prolonged fabric reliability
and sling longevity promotes patient safety and cost-effectiveness.
If the facility has chosen to outsource its sling laundering, it

must establish a good working
relationship with the laundry
company, with clear and regular
communication.
Inventory purchase and

stocking of supplies
A sling management process includes estimating the number and
sizes of slings a unit uses, purchasing inventory, and stocking
supplies in an organized, effective way. Several factors can affect inventory. For instance, as the
SPHM program grows, the facility
will need more slings and accessories, and purchasing may be
slow to catch up. The laundry
service, whether in-house or outsourced, also may be unable to
keep up with demand. And despite seemingly reasonable initial
expectations, turnaround time
might become impractical as the
SPHM program evolves. Also, the
number or sizes of slings a unit
uses may have been estimated improperly initially.
Healthcare facilities have two
options for establishing and keeping a satisfactory sling inventory
periodic automatic replenishment
(PAR) or centralized distribution.
PAR system
To maintain a PAR level, the

facility must keep enough slings
on hand so it doesnt run out
while waiting for resupply. Space
constraints may limit the PAR
level. PAR requires not just a
storage area but also a
dedicated staff member, along
with unit staff, transport staff, and
laundry staff for backup. Whats
more, if specialized slings are
stored on specific units, theyre
not easily available on other
units. On the other hand, using a

PAR system means slings will be
readily available on all shifts,
which leads to better compliance
with the SPHM program.
Centralized distribution
With this system, access to slings

may not be available when needed, especially on evenings,
nights, weekends, and holidays.
A staff member must be put in
charge of maintaining central storage for efficient distribution, and
a process for obtaining slings
must be established. For instance,
is a runner needed? If so, who
supplies the runner?
Nonetheless, a well-organized
centralized distribution process
can be highly effective if communication is clear and consistent.
Also, lack of unit storage for
slings isnt a concern.
(continued from page 10)
way to becoming firmly rooted

and incorporated into caregivers
daily practice. Although the practice change is becoming the new
norm, coaching and mentoring
are needed to help maintain momentum. Stories learned along the
journey should be used to inspire
both novice and expert clinicians.
Objective evaluation of the improvement process should continue, focusing on outcome measures
and identifying improvement opportunities to promote refinement.
Team members are now doing
things they never thought were
possibleand previously believed
to be unsafe. Recently, I learned of
a ventilator patient at St. Lukes
Medical Center, Boise/Meridian
(Idaho) who was receiving continuous renal replacement therapy
(CRRT). Staff safely mobilized the
Sling tracking
Sling tracking promotes return of
slings to the proper unit. Tracking
can be handled in several ways:
Slings can be labeled with an
indelible marker, barcoded, or
embroidered. A simple marking system can yield valuable
benefits.
Vendors may have sling tracking systems your facility can
use.
Support for the SPHM

program
A well-developed sling management system supports a facilitys
SPHM program. The SPHM must
elicit input from units that will use
the system and from the laundry
department or outsourced laundry company to ensure all parties needs are met. It must
choose sling styles and fabric
patient to the chair using the hospitals mobility protocol. In many

ICUs, such a patient would be
bedbound. But at St. Lukes, early
mobility is now routine practice
even for these patients. Conversation about mobility occurs in daily
rounds and often is a major focus
of daily patient goals.
In fact, staff members are likely
to comment that they no longer ask
the question Can we mobilize this
patient? Instead, they ask, Is
there a reason why we cant mobilize the patient? Key lessons
learned to promote and maintain
this cultural transformation include
the importance of testing new practices on a small scale, getting regular feedback of performance and
outcome data, providing sufficient
education, and increasing caregivers will to mobilize patients by
seeing the work in action.
September 2014
and put in place procedures for

sling purchase, inventory maintenance, care, laundering, tracking, and replacement. Once these
issues have been addressed, the
facility is ready to embark on an
SPHM program that can improve
patient care and help prevent
8
staff injuries.
Selected references
The Facility Guidelines Institute. 2010 Health
Guidelines Revision Committee Specialty Subcommittee on Patient Movement. Patient handling and movement assessments: A white paper. April 2010. https://www.dli.mn.gov/wsc/
PDF/FGI_PHAMAwhitepaper_042710.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2014.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Lift program policy and guide: Introduction
to the lift program. https://www.osha.gov/
CWSA-attachment/beverlyliftprogramguide.pdf.
Accessed July 3, 2014.
Jan DuBose is director of Safe Patient Handling

Programs and Services at Hill-Rom.
Deliberate focus, full

engagement
Incorporating new evidence into
daily practice isnt enough to sustain a culture change to emphasize early mobility and SPHM.
Such a change comes only with a
deliberate focus on three key questions: What are we are doing?
Why are we doing it? Whats my
role? Full engagement and cultural
transformation can occur only
when all team members can respond to these questions with full
8
understanding.
Visit www.AmericanNurseToday.com/Archives/
aspx for a multidisciplinary progressive mobility
continuum tool and a list of selected references.
Kathleen M. Vollman is a clinical nurse specialist,

educator, and consultant with Advancing Nursing, LLC in Northville, Michigan. Rick Bassett is a
cardiovascular clinical nurse specialist in adult
critical care at St. Lukes Medical Center,
Boise/Meridian, Idaho.
Making the business

case for a safe patient
handling and
mobility program
Learn about three approaches to
preparing an investment justification.
By John Celona, BS, JD
he value of a safe patient

handling and mobility
(SPHM) program is clear, but
the benefits may be difficult for
some nurse leaders to quantify.
Some investment justifications are
available from vendors of SPHM
equipment, but even when well
done, they dont give a complete
picture of potential benefitsand
inevitably are discounted because
vendors are in the business of selling equipment. This article describes how to make an independent, unbiased business case for an
SPHM program and presents a
case study of a decision analysis
process used at Stanford University Medical Center.
ers alternative program designs

and includes projections for the results if the proposed program isnt
implemented (such as increased
workers compensation costs and
increased pressure ulcers). Net
benefits commonly are measured
by subtracting costs with the program in place from costs without
the program in place.
Although preparing such projections is feasible for those with a
masters degree in business administration or a similar education,
many SPHM program champions
have clinical backgrounds. Here
are some possible strategies they
can use, starting with the easiest
but least facility-specific.
Elements of a good
business case
STRATEGY 1: Refer to a
published study
A business case should:

describe the proposed program, such as required equipment and training
quantify program costs and
benefits
show the programs net benefit
(benefits minus costs), expressed either as a net present value
or return on investment (ROI).
The easiest but least facility-specific and least accurate way to

prepare an investment justification is to refer to published studies. For example, the risk-management study I undertook for
Stanford, published in the April
2011 issue of Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, shows
what a facility with all the elements of a successful SPHM program can achieve.
A good business case consid-
September 2014
STRATEGY 2:
Complete a simple template
The next most accurate way to
prepare an investment justification
is to fill out a simple template.
Most likely, your employers finance department or capital committee has a standard template for
proposed expenditures. Most organizations require a cost-benefit
projection for 5 years into the future. The cost part is fairly easy,
and most people are familiar with
preparing budgets for what they
propose to spend. Be sure to include estimates for equipment purchases and training time.
As for benefits, the most commonly cited ones for an SPHM
program are reductions in workers compensation costs and in
lost or restricted staff days due to
patient handling and mobility injuries. Unless your facility already
has identified these costs, youll
need to crossmatch data from the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Form 300 (listing
causes of injuries and whether
they led to lost or restricted duty
Influence diagram
An influence diagram is a simple, graphic way of showing all items of interest and demonstrating whats related to what. Uncertainties are
shown in ovals, decisions in boxes, and the final value as a hexagon; arrows show relationships among items. This influence diagram shows
all safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) costs and benefits of interest to leaders at Stanford University Medical Center when considering whether to invest in an SPHM program.
days) against cost data in the

workers compensation system.
Typically, organizations estimate theyll save 60% to 80% of
workers compensation costs related to patient mobilization if they
have an SPHM program, and will
save zero to 50% of the cost of
replacement staff to fill in for outof-work or restricted-duty staff (depending on the facilitys replacement staff policy). Subtracting
each years costs from the benefits
yields the annual net benefit. If
your facilitys template hasnt built
in these costs, someone from the
finance department can help convert the year-by-year figures to a
net present value or ROI.
STRATEGY 3: Prepare a
decision analysis
Preparing a decision analysis is
more difficult than referring to a
published study or using a template. But its facility-specific and
thus provides the most complete
and accurate picture. Of course, it
must be done by someone skilled
in decision analysis. But for large
investments, the cost of the analysis is well worth it, because it:
delivers a highly accurate
quantification of costs and benefits, including uncertainties
shows worst- and best-case scenarios for costs and benefits
and describes exactly how
these might occur
September 2014
identifies how to get more value out of the SPHM program

specifies which result measures
should be tracked to validate
that the program is working as
it should be, and pinpoints
what the values for those measures should be.
Generally, a decision analysis
costs much less than 1% of the
program cost. Whats more, it produces recommendations for increasing program value, which
dwarf the cost of the analysis.
I worked with Stanford on a decision analysis for its SPHM program because it became apparent
that the simple-template approach
Tornado chart: Key value drivers

In this so-called tornado chart, the key value drivers for Stanfords safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) program appear at the top.
Uncertainties farther down the chart (the complete chart had 40 uncertainties) dont merit much time or attention. For example, whether
35% or 50% of restricted staff time was replaced with other staff time didnt significantly affect total program value. In reality, of course, all
uncertainties are varying at the same time, rather than one at a time as shown in this chart.
Reduction on turnover
Percentage point increases in Press Ganey score
Workers compensationcost (baseline) growth rate
Percentage of relevant staff with improved Gallup score
Percentage of ulcers in stage 1 or 2
Final workers compensation reduction rate

Final ulcer reduction rate
Lost and restricted days (baseline) growth rate
Percentage of referral from improved patient satisfaction

Equipment costs (based on patient mobility)
Patient volume growth rate
Average cost to treat stage 3, 4, or unstageable growth rate
Training costs (HR wages)
Final replacement costs reduction rate
Time replacement factor
initially used there missed most of

the value and wouldnt justify a
program in the new hospital under
construction.
Case study: Standford

decision analysis
At Stanford, we began by drawing an influence diagram to show
all SPHM costs and benefits of interest to leaders. (See Influence diagram.) For each cost or benefit,
more detailed work explored exactly how to quantify the results.
For example, to estimate the benefits of reduced staff turnover, we
needed to know:
number of nurses mobilizing
patients who would be affected
by the SPHM program
average annual staff turnover
rate
average cost to recruit and
train a nurse ($60K to $80K,

based on a literature search)
estimate of how much the
SPHM program would reduce
staff turnover.
We did similar work for each
type of cost and benefit. Unlike using a simple template or referring
to a published study, the decisionanalysis approach enabled us to
use a range of numbers to represent uncertainty regarding how
significant the future impact might
be. For turnover reduction, we
used a range of 0% to 20%.
These data were then programmed into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet. One immediate result
was that the total value of an
SPHM program (including hard-toquantify benefits) would amount to
more than twice the value of re-
September 2014
duced workers compensation

costs and lost and restricted days
alone.
The next step was to set each
uncertainty (such as a change in
the nurse turnover rate) to the low
value in the range, record the total
program value, set the uncertainty
to the high value in the range,
and record the total program value. The difference between the
two program values was plotted
on a bar chart. When the bars
were sorted from highest to lowest
impact on program value, the
characteristic tornado shape resulted. (See Tornado chart: Key value
drivers.)
Stanford leaders were surprised
to learn that reduced staff turnover
had the greatest potential for getting more value out of the SPHM
program, possibly increasing total
Components of total SPHM program value
Net present value ($ millions)
This waterfall chart shows that the largest components of value for Stanfords safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) program are decreases in workers compensation costs and in pressure ulcers and increased patient satisfaction. Nurse retention is a small component of total
program value in the base case scenario shown here (with only a 2% reduction in turnover), although it has the largest potential for increasing program value if turnover reduction could be pushed up to 20%.
ke
rs
or
W
pe
o
c
tio
a
ns
em
c
pla
Re
t
en
ff
sta
t
ien
Pa
program value from about $4 million to $6.5 million. As a result,

Stanford decided to inform the
nursing staff that it was going to
put in place the SPHM tools needed to keep them healthy and able
to work. Stanford also surveyed
staff satisfaction improvements resulting from the SPHM program.
Combinations of all the variables
produce thousands of scenarios,
best shown in a probability distribution. The probability distribution
for Stanford showed that the mean
program value was more than double the estimate from the template
approach. It also showed that in a
worst-case scenario, the program
would still pay for itself.
An easy way to show the components of program value is to
take the overall program value
from the base case (all uncertainties set to their middle value) and
break these down into compo-
lls
fa
ur
ss
e
Pr
er
ulc
se
r
Nu
ion
nt
e
et
at
s
ff
ta
on
cti
a
isf
at
t
ien
sa
on
cti
a
isf
nents of cost and value. This produces a so-called waterfall chart.

(See Components of total SPHM
program value.)
Outcome of the decision

analysis
Stanfords decision analysis
produced:
a high degree of confidence
that the actual value of the
SPHM program and uncertainty
in that value had been quantified accurately
a deeper understanding of how
the program would add value
and which benefits were most
important
insight into how to get more value from the program
identification of which value measures would need to be tracked
to validate program results.
At Stanford, reductions in work-
September 2014
tr
ien
t
Pa
ls
rra
e
ef
l in
ia
nit
en
tm
es
ing
go
On
sts
co
t
Ne
es
pr
alu
v
nt
ers compensation claims were on

track (within the 60% to 80%
range forecast), but baseline workers compensation costs were
growing faster than the maximum
19% annual increase forecast. A
closer look revealed that a returnto-work program had been discontinued, sending costs skyrocketing.
Stanford quickly reinstated that
8
program.
Selected references
Celona J, Driver J, Hall E. Value-driven ERM:
Making ERM an engine for simultaneous value
creation and value protection. J Healthc Risk
Manag. 2011;30(4):15-33.
Celona JN, McNamee PC. Decision Analysis for
the Professional. 4th ed., rev. Menlo Park, CA:
SmartOrg, Inc., 2001-2007.
The Facility Guidelines Institute. 2010 Guidelines for Design and Construction of Healthcare
Facilities. Dallas, TX: Author; 2010
John Celona is a principal at Decision Analysis

Associates, LLC, in San Carlos, California. He is
the author of Decision Analysis for the Professional, 4th ed.
Helping Improve Safe Patient Handling

with Liko Lifts, Specialized Slings and Clinical Programs
Hill-Roms People, Programs and Products are designed to work
together to help you with your Safe Patient Handling and Mobility
program.
Learn more about our Safe Transfers and Movement Program

and patient handling products at www.hill-rom.com/stamp.
2014 Liko R&D, AB. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

188198 rev 1
06-AUG-2014 ENG US

Ant9 Patient Handling Supplement 821a - LOW PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ant9 Patient Handling Supplement 821a - LOW PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ant9 Patient Handling Supplement 821a - LOW PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supplement to

Safe patient handling and

Any one of these trends is

While the intentions of manual

transportation orderlies, and others

Melissa A. Fitzpatrick is vice-president and chief

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

Current Topics in Safe Patient

Safe patient handling and mobility: A call to action

Elements of a successful safe

To build a successful program, identify

Transforming the culture:

Learn about ANAs

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

Implementing a mobility assessment

The authors describe a nurse-driven tool you

The sliding patient: How to respond

Pulling patients up in bed carries a high risk

Prepare to care for patients of size

Nearly a third of patient-handling injuries

Developing a sling management system

Making the business case for a safe patient

The author explains three approaches to justifying a

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

ince safe patient handling

Determining what you

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

Simplifying the equation

Determining what you need

available, an organization cant

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

Why feedback is important

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

ing more efficient lifting methods

John Celona is a principal at Decision Analysis

arly mobility in the intensive

resources, patients physiologic instability, lack of emphasis on the

bility practices without a protocol,

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

Learning progression for patient mobility

Right type of support, right time

I care now, but I feel clueless.

I know but need support and

Staff are receptive to

Staff are ready to put progressive

To progress to the next level:

To progress to the next level:

I dont know why I should care

I am skilled and can help others.

Staff are unclear on purpose

Staff skillfully put progressive

2010 Brandwene Associates

Current Topics in Safe Patient Handling and Mobility

define the role of each team

Four stages of learning

Decision tree for mobilizing hemodynamically

Screen for mobility readiness

Is the patient hemodynamically

Begin in-bed mobility techniques