Hand forces exerted by long-term care staff when pushing wheelchairs on compliant and non-compliant flooring

Effect of travel direction and wheelchair position on the ease of a caregiver getting an occupied wheelchair across a soft surface: a randomized crossover trial

PURPOSE

To test the hypotheses that, in comparison with pushing an occupied upright manual wheelchair forward, pulling backward on the push-handles improves the objective and subjective ease with which a caregiver can get the wheelchair across a soft surface (e.g., grass, mud, sand, gravel); and the ease with which a caregiver can get the wheelchair across a soft surface improves if the wheelchair is tipped back into the wheelie position.

METHODS

We used a randomized crossover trial with within-participant comparisons to study 32 able-bodied pairs of simulated caregivers and wheelchair occupants. The caregiving participants moved an occupied manual wheelchair 5 m across a soft surface (7.5-cm-thick gym mats) under four conditions (upright-forward, upright-backward, wheelie-forward and wheelie-backward) in random order. The main outcome measure was time (to the nearest 0.1 s) and the main secondary measure was the ease of performance (5-point Likert scale).

RESULTS

The upright-backward condition was the fastest (p < 0.05) and had the highest ease-of-performance scores. In the forward direction, there was no statistically significant difference in the time required between the upright and wheelie positions, but the wheelie position was considered easier.

CONCLUSIONS

Although further study is needed, our findings suggest that caregivers should pull rather than push occupied wheelchairs across soft surfaces. In the forward direction, caregivers may find the wheelie position easier than the upright condition. These techniques have the potential to both improve the effectiveness of and reduce injuries to caregivers. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04998539.

Shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention in older adults and staff in hospitals and care homes: the SAFEST systematic review

BACKGROUND

Injurious falls in hospitals and care homes are a life-limiting and costly international issue. Shock-absorbing flooring may offer part of the solution; however, evidence is required to inform decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention among older adults in care settings.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of experimental, observational, qualitative and economic studies evaluating flooring in care settings targeting older adults and/or staff. Studies identified by a scoping review (inception to May 2016) were screened, and the search of MEDLINE, AgeLine and Scopus (to September 2019) was updated, alongside other sources. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in duplicate (using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool, or the Joanna Briggs Institute's qualitative tool).

RESULTS

Of the 22 included studies, 20 assessed the outcomes (three randomised controlled trials; and seven observational, five qualitative and five economic studies) on novel floors (n = 12), sports floors (n = 5), carpet (n = 5) and wooden subfloors (n = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient/resident falls (nine studies) and 163 staff injuries (one study). Qualitative studies included patients/residents (n = 20), visitors (n = 8) and staff (n = 119). Hospital-based randomised controlled trial data were too imprecise; however, very low-quality evidence indicated that novel/sports flooring reduced injurious falls from three per 1000 patients per day on vinyl with concrete subfloors to two per 1000 patients per day (rate ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.84; two studies), without increasing falls rates (two studies). One care home-based randomised controlled trial found that a novel underlay produces similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to those of a plywood underlay with vinyl overlays and concrete subfloors. Very low-quality data demonstrated that, compared with rigid floors, novel/sports flooring reduced the number of falls resulting in injury in care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.91; three studies) and hospitals (27.1% vs. 42.4%; risk ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.93; two studies). Fracture and head injury outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 per 1000 falls on concrete to 18 per 1000 falls on wooden subfloors in care homes (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Four low-quality economic studies concluded that shock-absorbing flooring reduced costs and improved outcomes (three studies), or increased costs and improved outcomes (one study). One, more robust, study estimated that shock-absorbing flooring resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years and lower costs, if the number of falls increased on shock-absorbing floors, but that shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant economic strategy if the number of falls remained the same. Staff found moving wheeled equipment more difficult on shock-absorbing floors, leading to workplace adaptations. Staff injuries were observed; however, very low-quality evidence suggests that these are no less frequent on rigid floors.

LIMITATIONS

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is of very low quality; thus, much uncertainty remains.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust evidence is lacking in hospitals and indicates that one novel floor may not be effective in care homes. Very low-quality evidence indicates that shock-absorbing floors may be beneficial; however, wider workplace implications need to be addressed. Work is required to establish a core outcome set, and future research needs to more comprehensively deal with confounding and the paucity of hospital-based studies, and better plan for workplace adaptations in the study design.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019118834.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The SAFEST review: a mixed methods systematic review of shock-absorbing flooring for fall-related injury prevention

BACKGROUND

Shock-absorbing flooring may minimise impact forces incurred from falls to reduce fall-related injuries; however, synthesized evidence is required to inform decision-making in hospitals and care homes.

METHODS

This is a Health Technology Assessment mixed methods systematic review of flooring interventions targeting older adults and staff in care settings. Our search incorporated the findings from a previous scoping review, MEDLINE, AgeLine, and Scopus (to September 2019) and other sources. Two independent reviewers selected, assessed, and extracted data from studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools, undertook meta-analyses, and meta-aggregation.

RESULTS

20 of 22 included studies assessed our outcomes (3 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); 7 observational; 5 qualitative; 5 economic), on novel floors (N = 12), sports floors (N = 5), carpet (N = 5), and wooden sub-floors (N = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient falls (9 studies), and 163 staff injuries (1 study). One care home-based RCT found a novel underlay produced similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to a plywood underlay with vinyl overlay and concrete sub-floors. Very low-quality evidence suggested that shock-absorbing flooring may reduce injuries in hospitals (Rate Ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, 2 studies; 27.1% vs. 42.4%; Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93, 2 studies) and care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, 3 studies), without increasing falls. Economic evidence indicated that if injuries are fewer and falls not increased, then shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant strategy. Fracture outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 in 1000 falls on concrete to 18 in 1000 falls on wooden sub-floors (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Staff found moving wheeled equipment harder on shock-absorbing floors leading to workplace adaptations. Very low-quality evidence suggests staff injuries were no less frequent on rigid floors.

CONCLUSION

Evidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is uncertain and of very low quality. Robust research following a core outcome set is required, with attention to wider staff workplace implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118834 .

A comparison of floor surfaces for injury prevention in care settings: impact forces and horizontal pulling force required to move wheeled equipment

Shock-absorbing flooring is one potential solution to prevent fall-related injuries. No standards exist to characterize shock-absorbing healthcare flooring. This study explores two mechanical tests for impact force reduction and horizontal force required to move wheeled objects. An appropriately designed rubber underlay can reduce peak impact by 25% compared with 1% with standard vinyl.

INTRODUCTION

Severe falls often occur in hospitals and care homes. Shock-absorbing flooring is one potential solution to prevent fall-related injuries; however, no standards exist for characterizing flooring as an injury prevention measure. Shock-absorbing flooring use in high-risk settings may influence both patients (injury-saving potential) and staff (manoeuvring equipment). We aimed to explore two tests to characterize floors, to determine shock absorbency and horizontal pulling force required to move wheeled objects.

METHODS

Mechanical testing was performed according to the Canadian Standards Association Z325 Hip Protectors document. This test was developed for hip protectors but is applicable to compliant surfaces that form part of the floor. Tests were performed on commercially available floor materials (suitable for care settings) to assess the force required to initiate movement of a wheeled object across the floor. We explored the relationships between horizontal force required to pull wheeled objects, impact force, floor thickness, and core material.

RESULTS

Considerable differences were identified between floor samples in their ability to reduce the peak impact force (range 0.7-25%). A peak force reduction of up to 25% can be achieved with a specially designed rubber underlay. Horizontal pulling force increased with floor thickness but was lower for rubber floors. There was no direct relationship between impact attenuation and horizontal pulling force. Whilst thickness and core material explain some variations (66.5% for wheel movement; 82.3% for impact), other unmeasured factors clearly influence floor performance.

CONCLUSIONS

These results can inform the development of flooring and the establishment of standards needed to underpin practice, research, and development in this field.

Low-impact (compliant) flooring and staff injuries

Introduction: Low impact flooring (LIF) has shown potential for reducing fall-related injuries for older people in residential care or hospital environments. However, the increased rolling resistance when moving equipment on these floors has raised concerns that staff injuries may increase.Methods: LIF was trialled on one Older Persons Health ward for 2.5 years. Reported staff injuries were monitored during and following the trial. Numbers of staff injured on the LIF ward were compared with three other similar and adjacent OPH wards without LIF for the duration of the trial ('concurrent control' evaluation). At the trial conclusion the LIF ward moved to a different hospital that had standard flooring. This enabled a further 'during and after' evaluation where numbers of staff injured from the LIF ward during the trial were compared with those reported afterwards by the same ward staff without LIF.Results: There was no difference in the numbers of staff injured in the LIF ward compared with the concurrent control wards (28 LIF vs 30 control; p = 0.44). The number of staff with injuries in the LIF ward also did not significantly alter when those staff moved to a new ward without LIF (45 after vs 28 before; p = 0.11).Conclusion: There was no change in the numbers of staff with injuries during the LIF trial in an Older Persons Health ward. This small study suggests LIF appears safe for both patients and staff.Implications for rehabilitationFalls in hospital are common with patient injuries occurring in approximately 20-30% of falls.Low impact (compliant) flooring may reduce fall-related injuries in hospitals and residential care.Low impact flooring has an increased rolling resistance, which has the potential to increase staff injuries when moving equipment.This study found no change in the number of staff injured during a low impact flooring trial providing some reassurance that these floors are safe for staff.